Tablesaw Safety, Liability, and Common Sense on the Jobsite
I’ve rarely used a portable table saw that had a blade guard installed. That’s mostly because blade guards are so poorly designed that they seem to cause more trouble than they confront. It’s not that I don’t think blade guards are a good idea, I’ve tried to keep them in good condition and use them, but as soon as the bar gets a little bit bent, or the Plexiglas gets a bit scratched, these safety mechanisms can become safety hazards.
I’m not alone in this.
I’ve also seen a lot of guys operate portable table saws without the rip fence — cutting free-hand. I’ve even done it a few times, but I must say, my senses were on high alert because I was hyper-aware that something could go terribly wrong. Now that I’m a web producer/editor, I use my table saw rarely (when my wife demands a new book shelf or a built-in kitchen desk). It seems a lot more foreign to me than it used to, so when I flip the switch, my senses go on high alert. I’m even contemplating trading my old table saw for a new SawStop model.
The first time I heard about SawStop, I was in a waiting room of a glass company, waiting to pick up an order for a remodeling job I was working on. I was a remodeler in Portland, Maine, back before I made the switch to working for Fine Homebuilding. It must have been 2001, I saw a short article about it in a magazine featuring the photo of a hotdog getting nicked by a tablesaw blade that we’ve all seen thousands of times. I was thrilled to see this invention because I thought for sure it would be adopted by tool manufacturers soon and my job sites could be just a little bit safer. I took danger in stride as a builder/remodeler, but I was always looking for ways to make things a little safer.
A few months later, one of the guys on my crew cut a couple of fingers off working by himself in the shop. He was being careless and it was no one’s fault but his own. Still, it would have been great if that blade come screeching to a halt as soon as it touched his fingers. I know another guy who plunged a circular saw into his thigh because he had the blade guard tied back and was being careless. One time, on a framing job, a guy shot a 12d nail through the meaty part of my thumb as we framed a floor — I held the joists in place, he was bounce-firing. He had bad aim.
In March, a jury awarded $1.5 million in a case against Ryobi for a benchtop tablesaw injury that happened on a Massachusetts jobsite. The lawsuit claimed that the saw should have been equipped with blade-braking technology such as the aforementioned SawStop system. The story has been covered closely by Fine Woodworking associate editor Partrick McCombe.
In his most recent update, Patrick reported that Carlos Osorio, the plaintiff, was new to the trades and had been operating a portable tablesaw without a blade guard, splitter, or rip fence. When the strip of oak flooring began to bind, he pushed harder. His hand slipped and went through the blade. Fortunately, he didn’t lose his hand or fingers, but he did cut the heck out of his hand.
This is a tragedy all-around:
- It’s too bad that tool manufacturers didn’t embrace the idea of SawStop when the inventor pitched the technology to them (they could have charged more for their tools!)
- It’s too bad that Mr. Osorio’s boss didn’t train him a little better in tablesaw safety.
- It’s too bad that blade guards and splitters aren’t better designed so that they’re not removed and thrown away so frequently.
- t’s too bad that the tablesaw company was held liable for this accident.
No matter what you think of Mr. Osorio’s safety habits, these accidents are hard to reconcile. Yes, we make our own luck and when we do dumb things, dumb things happen. But it sure is nice when there’s a safety mechanism to cover for you.
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Affordable IR Camera
Reliable Crimp Connectors
View Comments
There is no such thing as too much emphasis on power tool safety. With a few "when we do dumb things, dumb things happen" events on my resume, I've adopted a consistent practice: USE PUSH STICKS!! I made a stack of them in a very functional design to keep a plentiful supply by each woodworking/finger-cutting tool I use. I find them a very useful, affordable and effective safety measure in lieu of the ideal: Saw-Stop technology on every tool. As an added reminder to use them, I inscribe each one with the words
"Keep Between Fingers and Blade"
on one side, and
"DO NOT Use Remaining Fingers as Push Sticks"
on the other side.
Work safe!
I concur that this is a tragic event. What I find equally troubling is the general perception that the guards designed for the tool can easily become damaged and in themselves become a hazard. I agree that the existing design for the guards are a long way from seamless in their operation. Especially if you are ripping a moderate size piece of plywood...you only have 2 hands and would really like a third to aid in the initial feed under the guard.
The question I would have, IF a blade guard had been in place.....would this incident have been avoided,
As a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, I now see a design project worth pursuing for safety. Refine the concept of the blade guard so that users will not remove these devices and increase their risk of injury. So the design need to be robust and non-distracting to the user for operation.
David Cameron
As the bluecollar comedian says, "you cant teach stupid". Whats next, I get sued by my siding contractor for not having nets to catch him when he falls off his walk board and lands on the pile of unused safety rails that I provided for him.
I am a DIY-er who has worked with table saws for many years and I've always recognized the danger of them. I, too, find virtually all guards to be poorly designed, ineffective and dangerous. And I have been known to cut without using the fence. I have never had an accident...until recently: I was cutting a 26" x 26" piece of 3/4" ply without the fence. The blade bound up and kicked the ply back faster than I could ever imagine. The piece hit me in the chest on the bottom rib to the right of my diaphragm. I swear the impact lifted me off the floor. (As a former boxer and rugby player I can attest to never ever being hit so hard!) I ended up in the Emergency Room with a massive contusion but fortunately no internal injuries. An inch lower and the piece would have missed my rib cage and impacted my liver.
Lessons I learned:
1. Never rush when using power tools. (I was.)
2. Never cut without a rip fence.
3. Use the proper tool (my circular saw and a straight edge would have been more appropriate.)
4. Re-install splitter on table saw or buy a saw with a riving knife.
5. Don't be so stupid ever again!
The fault was all my own and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to learn from my mistake with no permanent damage. (Three weeks later and I still have the imprint on my ribs and I'm still sore but I'm fine!)
Be safe.
Injury is never a just reward; but is the manufacturer of the product really negligble if I remove all the safeties that I have installed from the factory and advise to use? Was it the intent of the ruling to "punish" the manufacturing company for not using all available safety devices - or to reward the user for not following the written directions? A set of arm restraints can prevent the operator from putting his hands anywhere near the blade - but then what about the guy who decides to use his head as a push stick instead?
It's hard to say in this case if a blade guard would have saved this mans hand. Yes we all have stories of near misses and not so near misses. The SawStop technology works. I'm not someone who thinks the government needs to step and solve all our problems, remember when automobiles didn't have seat belts?
We should be using our purchasing power and demand saw stopping technology on table saws.
I am an attorney in MA and familiar with what's called "Saw Stop Litigation." I do not know anyone involved in the particular case described above. I am an avid yet novice woodworking, as far as table saws go, I ahve a 3 HP Grizzly cabinet saw with a riving knife, which I love. I 100% agree with the comments people have made with respect to proper safety protocols, they must be used at all times. However, I am concerned that the author states "it's too bad the tavlesaw company was held liable.". In MA as long as the injured party is not more than 50% at fault, he can collect from a negligent party, so Mr. Orsorio, who undoubtedly has some fault in his injury, can still collect even if he was somewhat at fault. Moreover, the saw stop technology has been around a while and why other manufacturers have not licensed it is beyond me. Moreover, if people remove the other safety devices because they are ineffective, easily broken and hamper proper use, this is an issue Ryobi needs to address. As the story indicates, and we would all agree, it's common knowledge that the safety devices are removed by end users for the aforementioned reasons. Thus, Ryobi knew this and should have fixed it and issued a recall. I am particularly bothered by Peakecg's comments, these are anti-lawyer bashing that's so common, it's banal. Not everyone, but there are always a few, want to blame the victim or injured party, let's look to the manufacturers to use the best options possible, and if they have to get hit with a few huge verdicts to get there heads on straight, then it's not "too bad," as they are in the best position to make the tools safe. The result of these types of cases will be improved safety for all and that's not "too bad" either.
I have read the entire court transcripts and just shake my head. Part of the problem are the silly laws in some of the states on the east coast, but that's another rant.
Where is OSHA in all this?! The overwhelming majority of fault came down on Ryobi as decided by the jury. What the ???? In my opinion, the contractor that hired and was suppose to train Mr. Osorio in all aspects of safety related to any tools he was required to use was solely at fault! If a press operator at a factory is injured, does that mean that the manufacturer of the press is at fault because the operator was using it incorrectly?! Technology IS available to disable an automobile if the driver has had too much to drink. Should a drunk driver be able to sue an auto manufacturer when he/she crashes. They should be able to argue that the manufacturer was negligent because the technology was available, but not installed on their vehicle.
Should the next person that is injured from their lawn mower be able to sue because SawStop technology was not installed on their mower?! I smashed my finger with a hammer the other day... how dare they put out a product that can cause harm! I've got to contact a lawyer. Think about it... everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, that you use or come in contact with can potentially harm you if you use/approach it wrongly.
I agree that many guards and such that are in place for safety reasons are cumbersome and some even appear to impair safety, especially if it encourages you to remove them. I use my table saw without the guard, but I'm not going to make some lawyer rich because of my stupidity. Maybe internet access needs to be added to all power equipment so you would need to sign a user agreement and waiver every time you turn it on. Excessive safety features can also cause complacency. The day will come when someone gets their fingers sheared off because the SawStop saw was used in an outdoor workshop, and after a few years, the springs/mechanism didn't work because of sawdust and corrosion.
What ever happened to COMMON SENSE?! Oh, that's right... we don't need that anymore, we have the womb of the government to take care of us. Ahh, Bliss.
It is said "you can't fix stupid" and I think it is true. However in this case, the jury that awarded the individual any settlement falls into that same category. I empathize with Mr. Carlos Osorio going through his pain and suffering but he gave up any right to sue as far as I am concerned when he removed the safety guards before beginning his work. Even if it had been removed by another, he should have insisted that it be reinstalled for his own safety. My prayers go out to Mr Osorio that he is ok today. Perhaps it was a tough way to learn that safety equipment is in place for a reason.
This story makes me sick! Once again, an idiot is rewarded for his stupidity and a reputable tool manufacturer whose tools (and thier accompanying safety features) are usual and customary, on par with the rest of the industry is punished. Note that there was apparently no permanent injury to speak of. The man suffered only cuts to his hands yet was awarded 1.5 million!!?!?! What is the money covering? This guy wouldn't have MADE 1.5 million in his lifetime.
In other words, IF this was somehow the fault of the manufacturer AND IF Carlos (or Juan or whatever his name is) had died, the award would have been excessive.
This is symptomatic of the very real, and very disturbing trend in this country to remove personal responsability from the equation and reward moronic behavior with corporate cash. The real winner? My guess is the contigency lawyer who filed the lawsuit and took a cool 60% - roughly $850,000
You have all made great points about personal responsibility and I agree, the operator should be responsible for bad work habits.. What no one seams to mention is that the manufacturer negotiated rights for the devise and chose not to install it, that was their big mistake.. Second, workmen's comp paid the legal fees, they are looking for other pockets to foot the bill for injury claims..
As you have repeatably have stated in all of your magazine, "Home building is inherently dangerous". I have been involved in home construction since I was 13. I am now approaching 60 and now my own GC business of 30 years, but still hands on. I can honestly say been there done that. However, I have managed to keep all of my appendages. The injuries that I have incurred have not been the fault of the tool or the manufacturer of that tool. The injuries have been nothing but my own damn fault. Yes, I have broken my finger by missing the nail with my 28oz hammer, I have slices a chunk out of my leg with a skill saw( with guard attached), Yes I have shot a nail through my finger with my nail gun (more than once), yes I have cut my finger off on a table saw(it was reattached), I even cut my wrist watch almost in half with my electric miter saw. I could keep going, but I think you just might be getting the point! Why? You get in a hurry, your tired and might even be sleep deprived, you just might be hung over, you have other issues on your mind other than what you are doing,just the distractions on the job, you didn't read the instructions that came with your new tool, or were not trained to use the tool, or I'm a man, don't need to wear hearing or eye protection, or I've done this for years, haven't been hurt yet!. Where does the buck stop? It should stop with you. You are the one and only one responsible for yourself. Where has just plain ol' common sense gone? Remember "Home building is inherently dangerous", you are responsible for yourself.
Is this case bad or good? I won't judge that but what iI will say that the US needs needs a user pays law. If you file a lawsuit and you lose you paythe legal expenses of the defendent. This would go a LONG LONG way to stopping crazy lawsuits.
I'm sure our lawyer friend knows (and perhaps has actively participated in) of suits whos only intent is to secure a settlement because defense of the suit will cost more than the settlement.
If you make the loser pay defense costs, more of these will go to trial instead of being settled and the plaintiffs will be held liable for costs. Eventually, this will result in fewer suits with the truly worthy proceeding to court.
My even more severe suggestion is for a law requiring loser pay double; half from the plaintiff and half from the plaintiffs lawyer. Implement my system and worthless suits will screech to a halt almost overnight. Plaintiffs lawyers will quickly split the wheat from the chaff to keep from exposing themselves to liability.
This case is the epitome of absurd! Our jury is supposed to be composed of our "peers". If only one of those jurors had any working experience with "portable" table saws "on-site" the trial would have a hung-jury. To cut a piece of strip flooring without a fence is panamount to suicide. If square flooring, the miter guide would do.
I thought I could not be any more upset re: this award (reward?) until I red the previous comment from the attorney. And you wonder why you get bashed? You admit you are a "novice" with your 3HP Grizzley, a very stable and easily safe-use machine. Again, try using the small portable units on a job-site. You blame the mfg. for not recalling the the unit that had the gaurd and fence stupidly removed? How would they know of this? And, why haven't you informed Grizzley to recall your saw and insist a Saw-Stop feature? Shame on Grizzley for not knowing about you.
What many do not realize is that Saw-Stop will activate if the material being cut has too high of a moisture content. Each Saw-Stop activation is a considerably expensive and time consuming to get running again. So we get to the job-site after a rainy week-end and all the wood has too high of a moisture content, what do we do now? Go home? Bring in a kiln? When does the job get done now? While I have all the respect in the world for all your previoius education to get you where you are, it behooves attornys to reach for a bit of real-life smarts before taking a stand (so to speak). Now in my sixties and owning most all types of power saws made, by applied "safe" practices, I remain unscathed. It's not rocket science.
In the UK, EVERY employee has to be fully trained under stringent Health & Safety legislation to ensure that although "accidents can happen" that the responsibility for safety lies squarely with BOTH the individual operating the equipment and the company employing that person. If you ARE NOT trained you have the right to refuse to operate hazardous equipment or carry out hazardous tasks until you have been. If an employer is "difficult" about this - an employee is entitled to pursue litigation against an employer and has a high liklihood of winning appropriate compensation. EMPLOYEE SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT. If under circumstances where the employee, having been fully trained and aware of his own safety obligations, still chooses to operate defective or unsafe eqipment or use inappropriate techniques, then THE OPERATOR OF THE EQIPMENT is culpable. Such an employee might even find HIMSELF in a position of direct culpability and liable to be himself FINED substantially by The Health and Safety authorities if appropriate safety measures are NOT followed or applied.
I think I approve of the impartiality of this arrangment.
The story referred to sounds as if an inappropriately litiginous route is being adopted in an attempt to ensure a safety "product" be adopted. Surely this is cannot be the case?
Its just occurred to me - If I remove or disable the braking mechanism in my car and have an accident, is the can Manufacturer to blame?
If so, I wonder what the optimum survival speed to compensation ratio would be ?
Hmmm....
Duh!
Fantastic, so what's next? Humm, my plunge router stays running when I lift it off the piece I'm working on. If I'm dumb enough to rest it like this while it's running and get injured can I sue? How about my hammer manufacturer? As a kid, I hit my nail holding hand all the time, can I go after them now? And from SawStop, can I go after them when the safety mechanism trips for no "fleshy" reason? Kind of like the class action suit on the nail gun companies for intentional double firings?
Me, I like Mike Rowe's safety mantra, safety third.
Let's not forget that SawStop wanted, to start, 8% of the wholesale price of the saw as a licensing fee - non-negotiable (why not sue Gass for near extortion?). The cost of the technology adds $150-200 to the price of the saw. There is also no "flesh" detection - it is *moisture* detection. A lot of false positives are the result. So, too bad that manufacturers did not embrace this? I think not. It's a novel idea but not even close to a perfect solution and adds tremendous cost to the devices using the technology not to mention downtime when you are unable to use them.
Not sure if I can include links but another article on the Bosch miter saw lawsuit (saw did not have SawStop technology) is on the ProToolReview web site. Hmm... Does SawStop make a miter saw??? No.
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
Theerman, very nice that you went to the Buffalo School of Law but that hardly makes you an expert on what constitutes and comprises the definition of a "safe" power tool. Should the manufacturer make it so that by removing the safety mechanisms you disable the device until replaced (not a bad idea...)? Or do you just sue the manufacturer because the injured didn't know how, or refused, to use the device in the manner in which it was intended? Who was really negligent? I say Osirio's employer. Backing SawStop and supporting the verdict is also tantamount to promoting SawStop as a monopoly. To avoid the monopoly the government would have to remove the patent and provide Gass with consideration.
And why, under Massachusetts law, Mr. Theerman, was The Home Depot not also liable? Why the inconsistency with the saw found "defective" under implied warranty? Rhetorical.
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
A troubling trend in modern western democracy: Everyone's entitled to something for nothing and no individual is ever held responsible for thier own negligence.
Sorry you were injured Carlos, but this was not Ryobi's fault.
I don't understand this verdict. Does this mean I can sue Toyota because the Corrolla I got injured in doesn't have all the safety features as one of their Lexus cars?
Mr. Morrison,
First let me say, I really don't see the point of this blog article. It pretty much just reignites the FHB rally for SawStop and brings the Osorio vs. Ryobi case back up for further superfluous commentary. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the FHB audience agrees the lawsuit is bogus.
Next let me say "thank you" for admitting that you've used a saw without the guard. I have personally never used a saw with a guard. It is often just a fact of life that some liability prone safety features must be modified or removed to effectively/efficiently perform the work necessary with them. Naysayers may hide under whatever cloak they desire but we all break safety rules in our own way and we all have our excuses why and to what ends.
Last, let me remark on your bullet points:
1.) "...too bad that tool manufacturers..."
There's always going to be the cheap tool company that won't follow and there's always going to be the cheap SOB who doesn't think it's worth the money. Then we'll start seeing a resurgence of home made table saws or the ready made "saw tables" that you just strap your circ. saw under.
2.) "...too bad that Mr. Osorio's boss..."
I have never understood why the boss or the company is to blame for a worker's stupidity (because they hired a moron, maybe?). It just seems like blame is pinned on whoever has the most intelligence or deepest pockets. Personal liability is rare these days - unless you are wealthy. My point... if you are a carpenter (or whatever) walking around with missing digits chances are it was your own dumb fault.
3.) "...too bad the blade guards..."
In my professional opinion they only protect the ignorant anyway. If you need a chunk of plastic and steel to remind you that there is a possibly dangerous spinning blade in the vicinity then maybe you should rethink your career path. I just stick to rule #1 for table saw use "Do not put hand into spinning blade".
4.) "...too bad the tablesaw company..."
I despise Ryobi tools. To me they are the epitome of home owner/diy tool misuse and stupidity. In that sense it is fitting that their tool is the center of this debate. That said, I am on their side here. They are just another company trying to make a living, doing what they can to provide a product or service and not get sued the same as every other company in the USA. Then they get tripped up by this moron using their product. Indeed that is too bad.
As a side rant, another "too bad" to add to your list may be; It's too bad that lawyers (such as the one representing Mr. Osorio) and the politicians they often become are such money hungry scum bags. Although I must assume that the majority of lawyers out there are decent folks, it seems far too easy to find a scum bag lawyer. Ask any carpenter...lawyers are some of the worst clients.
DC
Does anyone know if the verdict is being appealed? If not, your table saw is going to get a lot more expensive! It is great technology - but one with a real drawback. It can false alarm and when doing so it ruins the saw blade.
Reading the comments a few things jump out at me:
(1) I own a SawStop (one of first) and I never had problems cutting wet wood. I guess there is some theoretical possibility that it could happen -- but it hasn't.
(2) I use push sticks. But, I am thankful that I had the SawStop when my "other" hand accidental hit the blade. To this day, I don't know how -- it was just guiding the board. Maybe my glove caught? I dunno. But, the saw stopped before my finger was damaged. Thank you Steve for inventing this tool.
I cannot comment on the legal case. I can comment that the history of this saw has been filled with controversy -- and its unfortunate because this is great technology. If the saw manufacturers really valued the technology and didn't like the licensing fees, they would invent an alternative version of the technology -- but they haven't invested in the effort. That says enough there.
The added cost to the saw is for multiple reasons. It doesn't have the same trunnion system; its simply more expensive to manufacture. The manufacturers at the time did not want to retool their saws; their lawyers didn't want them even suggesting that the tool wasn't safe; and they didn't have market pressure. Its sad that they were more concerned with the color of the table than the mechanics of the saw.
Maybe this legal judgment will force change. That is how I read the jury's award -- not that they thought that this accident really warranted the judgment. Given the number of table saw accidents, I think this judgement puts the saw manufacturers on notice.
I agree 100% with Dreamcather! The guy that got cut up is an idiot!!! Why poor Ryobi is getting sued is a mystery to me?
I am the first to take the guards off any table saw or chop saw that I buy. They are dangerous, and give the operator a false sense of protection. I also find you spend more time trying to use a hand to move the guard so you can see your work piece, that you are no longer supporting the workpiece correctly, and the cut becomes much more dangerous than it needs to be.
I own eight table saws, and not one of them is a Saw stop! I don't want a Saw stop! They are too expensive, and they ruin your blades. I have no use for that! If that idiot that got cut up wins this lawsuit, it will be over for all of us. There will be no more regular, conventional, table saws anymore. You will have to buy one on ebay.
The problem I have with this is the blank check that it gives to saw-stop
it mandates that manufacturers purchase license this from them until the patent runs out, but says nothing about what price Saw-Stop can charge for it (the 1.5M judgement would be peanuts compared to what would happen after such a mandate was in place and some company didn't license it)
the only thing that would prevent this would be the desire of the Saw-Stop people to remain in business 15+ years from now after the patent runs out (assuming that they don't think that they can get another patent to repeat the process), but 15 years of getting any amount they want to charge for every saw (and don't forget their charge for the sale replacement brakes as well) could amount to enough money to retire on several times over, so why should they care? a poster upstream said that they used to want to charge 8% of the retail cost of the saw. If there are laws (or judgements like this one) that mandate that everyone license their technology then there's nothing preventing them from deciding to change 50% or 75% of the retail price of the saw.
personally I think it's a good idea to have saw-stop as an option for every saw, but I don't think it's appropriate to mandate it for either manufacturers or for shops.
Now if someone (including the government) were to buy out the patent and say that implementing the concept was free of charge, then there _may_ be grounds for saying that everyone should install it.
as it is, it's like Ford getting a patent on seat belts or airbags and then getting the govenment to say that all cars on the road must include them and that GM must pay whatever Ford wants to charge them for the privilage of remaining in business. how long do you think it would be before GM was out of business anyway?
the temporary monopoly that patents grant is tolerable only when it's optional to use the patent, as soon as it becomes mandatory to use the patent you give control over the entire industry to whoever owns the patent.