SawStop Part II- Rick Casario

1. Manufacturers-  “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.” This consequential claim comes from the fact that because SawStop tech will cost more for the manufacturer, then the cost will also inevitably rise for the consumers. This could potentially hurt (pun intended) the market for table saws.

2. Customers- “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

Wec, the consumer of Bosch’s table saw, makes a consequential claim here that because Bosch refused to implement SawStop tech, he was injured. The important thing to remember here is that this technology has been available since the early 2000’s.

3. Industry Spokesmen-  “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”

This is a consequential claim. The claim is saying that the greater majority of table saw related injuries are caused by saw kickback, not necessarily cut related injuries.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates- “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.”

The claim that the CPSC president is making is an evaluation claim. He is evaluating that because very serious injuries have occurred from table saws without SawStop, that the lives of the families are forever changed. Although it may make life harder, that does not necessarily mean all the consumer and their families are all impacted.

5.  Injured Plaintiffs- “The court found that the table saw’s manufacturer, One World Technologies, was liable for Osorio’s injuries for failing to include the SawStop safety mechanism in the Ryobi table saw.” This is a definitive claim in the court case of Osorio vs. Ryobi (One World Technologies). This is a definitive claim because it is clearly stating that One World Technologies is guilty for Osorio’s injuries.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers- “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.”

This is a consequential claim by the lawyers. The lawyers site states that thousands of people have been injured by table saws even though the technology is available. Despite the fact that the technology to stop these injuries exists, manufactures will not adopt it.

7. Government Officials- “Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.”

This is a categorical claim by the CSPC president. I believe this is a categorical claim because its categorizing a particular type of injury and its insane amount thats its totaling up to.

8. News Reporters- “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability.” This is an evaluation claim. It is explaining what is happening in the court case.

This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Rick Casario. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to SawStop Part II- Rick Casario

  1. davidbdale says:

    Very impressive, Rick.

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