Saws part 2 – Rory O’Connell

1. Manufactures:, “Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance. You can’t cut off your fingers if they don’t get near the blade.” This is an Evaluation claim. The company provided a manual with safety procedures to help prevent this kind of incident. I find that it is reasonable for the company to warn the customer about the dangers before they happen.

2. Customers: “He claims that Bosch, “acting through PTI, has also actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission … to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table says.” This is a Consequential claim  because the company chose to not get the SafeSaw and caused his injury. Had they added the device this whole case wouldn’t need to go to court. This is not very reasonable because the company isn’t responsible for adding a safety feature. Had the victim wanted the device he should have purchased it on his own.

3. Industry Spokespeople: “Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625. Your entry level table saws would all but disappear.” This is a Consequential claim. By mandating that all saws need a safety device smaller jobsites could face higher charger for the same amount of work. This is a reasonable claim because the added safety device should be optional and not mandatory for a jobsite.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates: “Consumer advocates are asking the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the federal agency responsible for protecting Americans from dangerous products, to require manufacturers to include the new safety mechanism.” This is a Proposal claim. The Consumers are proposing to the Consumer Products Safety Commission that all saws should require the SawStop. This claim is not very compelling because the SawStop should be installed by the customer if they want it. 

5. Injured Plaintiffs: “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses.” This is an Evaluation claim. Had the SawStop been included he would only have a tiny scratch in one finger rather then having a whole hand injured. This is reasonable because in this case the SawStop could have cost him $100 rather then $384,000.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “Despite the fact that this safety device could prevent thousands of table saw injuries and amputations every year, table saw manufacturers have been resistant to implementing the invention.” This is a Consequential claim. The lawyers argue that the companies not adding the SawStop causes thousands of injuries every year. This is reasonable because a safety device would lower the amount of injuries.

7. Government Officials: “When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable.” This is an Evaluation claim. They claim that amount of “life-altering” injuries are far greater then the cost of the SawStop. This is reasonable because many people carry these injuries for the rest of their life and would rather had paid $100 for the SawStop.

8. News Reporters: “He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer.” This is a Definitional claim. The inventor had offered the licensing agreement to Bosch but they rejected the offer. This claim is reasonable because he did offer the technology to Bosch but they declined the offer.

This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Rory O'Connell. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Saws part 2 – Rory O’Connell

  1. davidbdale says:

    You mistake the claims of the characters in the quotes as the claims of the authors, Rory, in several instances. Your analysis should be of claims made the by authors of the sources you’re reading. What claims do they make about the participants in the controversy? You also draw VERY many conclusions of your own, identifying positions you believe in as reasonable. That doesn’t sound right. I’d like you to sign up for a conference Thursday. Is before class better, or after?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s