Would You Stick Your Finger Into a Table Saw Running at Speed?

[JBourquin]

The ones responsible for these people winning b/s lawsuits are the jurors that are handing them over to them.

 

[CHDinCT]

Didnt some women just win something like $40 billion from a tobacco company because her husband died of cancer from smoking? If I recall the basis of the award was that the cigs were habit forming so he couldn't help himself. Well hasn't that been common knowledge since about 1970?

 

[TomSeller]

But he didn't shove it in. He very slowly advanced. Even without a "saw stop" he was moving it so slowly, so carefully he could have withdrawn his finger after losing 1/100th inch of skin. That's probably not how accidents happen..

I believe that part of the video is in slow motion. They talk about special lights to capture the action. I took it that his actual hand movement was at a normal rate?

 

[varmint]

I was present at a Woodcraft store a couple of years ago for a demo of the Saw Stop- they ran the hot dog into the blade about as fast as your hand would be moving ripping a piece of thin wood, no jerking back or anything but forward motion, and the dog only got a nick. Bandaid, at worst. I think there was an effort to mandate the use of this safety feature on all new saws, but that didn't go anywhere. Common sense, and attention to job at hand is required, and you should be okay. Maybe those two concepts are lacking??

 

[jaotguy]

wouldn't do it ... even if they paid big $$$$$ ...

love my hands too much .... I'm attached to them .

 

[TCowner]

Jbourquin is right. We often blame lawyers for the money awarded in lawsuits but is the "jury of our peers" that typically award these people. The lawyer simply makes the argument, its the jury (you now, our friends/neighbors) that determine the damage award. I'm not a lawyer by the way but they often times get beaten up in public opinion when the jury deserves the blame. We all hate lawyers until we need one.

 

[jaotguy]

one forgets ... the original law was to face the judge by yourself ... no fancy proceedings or precedents to quote ... you stated the facts and gave information , you didn't have a lawyer or legal aid ... then they added the jurors to make sure the judge wasn't bought off ....

all of that other stuff came much later ... for the people that HAD money and paid someone to stand in their place ....

and so the lairs of the black cloth came about .... and the fancy clothes and a new trade ....

notice we've brought back small claims court , to the forefront ... you and the other stand in front of a judge again ... no lawyers to be the mouth piece ....

 

[Sodo]

The lawyer simply makes the argument, its the jury (you now, our friends/neighbors) that determine the damage award. I'm not a lawyer by the way but they often times get beaten up in public opinion when the jury deserves the blame.

Nope. The lawyer gets 1/3 of the money that the jury approves. The lawyer is highly motivated (financially motivated) to BS the jury, and award the money (33% to himself). So if a jury awards $10 million, the lawyer gets 3.3 million. Who WOULDN'T BS your friends and neighbors for that kind of money?

A trial by jury is essential to our freedom. Lawyers being allowed to use our legal system to enrich themselves is an abuse of our society systems. It is an invisible tax on everything you buy. This tax does not improve your roads, your schools, your society, it provides luxuries for lawyers. Don't kid yourself, their luxuries are paidfor by you.

 

[MoKelly]

In my opinion, shoving your attached finger in a running table saw equipped with saw stop would be the equivalent of taking a loaded gun and putting it to your head with the safety on and pulling the trigger. After all safeties always work, right? I am not saying the product is not proven, or won't work, or anything like that, I am just saying I ain't going to stick my finger in no running saw blade. Nor do I trust the safety of any firearm, or test the airbags in my automobile by hitting a power pole. Just saying.

My goodness. A just plain common sense answer.

+2.

MoKelly

 

[Danno1]

.

Jbourquin is right. We often blame lawyers for the money awarded in lawsuits but is the "jury of our peers" that typically award these people. The lawyer simply makes the argument, its the jury (you now, our friends/neighbors) that determine the damage award. I'm not a lawyer by the way but they often times get beaten up in public opinion when the jury deserves the blame. We all hate lawyers until we need one.

TC, I'm not a lawyer. Having said that, I don't think your explanation is 100% correct. The judge instructs the jury on what testimony they're allowed to consider and what rules/laws they have to follow. The jury can not just do anything they please, just as the judge and lawyers can't either.

one forgets ... the original law was to face the judge by yourself ... no fancy proceedings or precedents to quote ... you stated the facts and gave information , you didn't have a lawyer or legal aid ... then they added the jurors to make sure the judge wasn't bought off ....

all of that other stuff came much later ... for the people that HAD money and paid someone to stand in their place ....

and so the lairs of the black cloth came about .... and the fancy clothes and a new trade ....

notice we've brought back small claims court , to the forefront ... you and the other stand in front of a judge again ... no lawyers to be the mouth piece ....

Lawyers came about so that the common man had an equal chance in court as did the educated man.


.