*
Did anyone else hear that ITW (makers of Paslode nailers) has bought out Duofast and is now in the process of buying Senco as well? Repair shop just told me this this week.
MD
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Fine Homebuilding's editorial director has some fun news to share.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Sometime back on a post that has now falled off the bottom of the board, I indicated that I had seen an article discussing a suit against Senco. I finally got around to looking up the particulars (took me all of about two minutes to find a reference on the Internet):
"A unanimous ruling restores $1.9 million a Multnomah
County jury awarded in 1994 to the family of a man who
suffered brain damage when a nail gun misfired into his
head.
"... testimony showed John Lakin was
installing a roof in his mother-in-law's home in 1990 when
the nail gun he was using double-fired, causing it to recoil,
hit him in the face and fire a nail through his cheek into his
brain.
"Lakin suffered partial paralysis, vision problems and loss of
short-term memory. He also had to move into a
Beavercreek home for the brain-damaged.
"In 1994, a Multnomah County jury awarded Lakin more
than $10 million in damages against Senco Products Inc.,
the Ohio company that manufactured the nail gun. The
award included $3.3 million in economic damages, $2.9
million in non-economic damages and $4 million in punitive
damages.
"The $2.9 million in non-economic damages included $2
million to Lakin and $876,000 to his wife. Because of the
cap, the judge reduced the amount for each to $500,000.
... "the Oregon Supreme Court
on Thursday said the state's $500,000 cap on non-economic
damage awards violates the state constitution's right to trial
by jury."
*... and reading this I was about to mutter that the cap should be unconstitutional ...I wonder what about the Senco design was thought to be defective, whether this defect is serious, and whether Senco proposes any retrofit modifications. Casey, i don't suppose you can locate a Senco reaction? (I own their finish gun and the safety is starting to act peculiar, will get it fixed VERY soon.)BTW, if anyone doesn't know, "economic damages" means money lost out-of-pocket for medical, lost wages, etc.; non-economic is pain-and-suffering, lost of companionship, etc. Punitive is as it sounds and is only supposed to be awarded in extreme cases.Anyone else catch the Sabretech "conviction" for its role in the infamous Valujet crash that broke the company? They're the ones who supplied live oxygen canisters for transport by the flight, which basically became incendiary devices when activated. Interestingly all individual employees on trial were acquitted.
*andrew,I do feel sorry for the poor man, but I find it hard to blame the manufacturer. I can't tell you how many guns I have owned in the past that "double shoot" from time to time. Is there something in the literature from the manufacturer that covers them for this liability, and is a jury allowed to disregard that documentation?I'm not in favor of faulty products, but I'm not in favor of people who are "sue happy" or juries who find not on the facts. Senco is the best nail gun company for my money. Will this set a standard? Did the jury, in your opinion find with sympathy and not logic?Ed. Williams
*Construction is a dangerous buisness no matter how safe you are. I would love to know if the gun was properly maintained, wasit being used properly, did the man read the owners manual? From what I see it is an example of the jury feeling sorry for the man and a big company can afford it. Another rise in the price of tools to pay for a lawers new Mercedes.Rick Tuk
*WHEN ARE PEOLE GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS??? I am trying to imagine a situation where a man shoots himself in the head because the gun made him do it. I am clever and creative, but drawing a blank here.............. No, wait, he can't read, and misunderstood the red circle/slash thinking this was protocol. By all means sue the BIG, EVIL GUN MANUFACTURER!!! Better yet, let's CONFISCATE ALL GUNS!!! No matter what they do to the gun, someone will find a way to shoot someone in the head with it. When that is complete let's take a look at those SHARP AND POINTED TOOLS!!! Yeah, lawyers make this country great ............ Do I sound facetious???.......I apologize to all the liberal pigs reading this post. ........JRNicholson.........P.S...Especially the liberal pig lawyers
*JR, I was trying to picture how the gun could be at fault too. The only thing I could come up with, it must have been one of those cheap "saturday night special" sencos. I totally agree with you on taking responsibility for our own actions. Seriously, the only way I can see that happeinng is for the guy to have the gun pointed in the general direction of his FACE when he pulled the trigger, I'm sure there could be other scenerios, most probably just as goofy. I feel sorry for the guy and his family but dont see how you can blame a manufacturer for an individuals carelessness. Like you said no matter what they do safety wise, if a gun can fasten two peices of lumber together it can penetrate your body. Maybe some day they will come up with some type of hi tech tape to frame with. Or kevlar body suits to wear on the job. Chuck
*I don't know if I qualify as a liberal pig or not (the more time I spend on this board, the more middle of the road I feel). I do agree that the failure of individuals to take responsibility for their actions is one the cornerstones for many problems that exist in this country today. And, yes, some of the lawsuits that get filed seem rediculous to me (my personal favorite is the McDonald's hot coffee). On the other hand, I don't think there is any question that many of the products we buy today are safer because of the lawsuits (or the threat of them). Proper balance is hard to achieve, but the occasional failure to achieve it is not cause to throw out the system.Rich Beckman
*How about a look see from the OTHER side of the fence.There are some great companies here that make great products. Then there are not so great companies that make great products. Then there are the sleaze bag companies that make terrible products.The sleaze bag companies that produce marginal, or even junk products are the topic. They are the ones who really cost the American public in the number of lawsuits filed each year. Here's the scenario, and I know 'cause I've been there on the executive side. The company makes a product that has a defect. This defect may or may not cause injuries, but it sure as heck will cause the product to fail in a lot of cases. The corporate executives get together with the Bean Counters (Accountants) and come up with cost factors for either recalling the products and repairing them, or settling lawsuits that may be filed. If the cost for the repairs is lower than anticipated lawsuit settlements, they recall the product (on their own) and repair them. If the cost is lower for the anticipated lawsuits, then they do NOT recall the product, and set aside some money to settle the anticipated lawsuits. Once they reach an agreement, they hand it over to the coprorate lawyers to look it over and see if there is some legal ramifications for what they are doing. The corporate lawyers tell them to go ahead with the plan, or to recall the product based on possible legal ramifications of their actions. More times than not, the corporation just sets aside money to settle lawsuits.This method of doing business is fast changing. One factor that can account for this change is the HUGE jury awards being given to people hurt by the company's product. Once the jury finds out about the executives meeting with the bean counters, the jury gets pissed at the company's arrogance about all of it. The huge awards are the jury's way of telling the company involved that they cannot do this and expect to walk away without being penalized.There is always more going on in the courtroom than what gets reported. Most of the cases like this have at least SOME of the documents and testimony sealed (at least for awhile). It never ceases to amaze me that a reporter (either t.v. or newspaper) will give an "accurate" account of a trial in about 30 seconds, or two columns. When you actually see the 800 pages of testimony, and 3,000 pages of documents being presented, or you actually hear 300 hours of testimony, how can they be "accurately" reporting the facts? They just tell you what they want you to hear. Just enough to get your attention, and make you think you have just received the true "facts" of the whole issue. Then there are the sleazeballs who sue for anything, at anytime, hoping for a quick buck. The sleazebag lawyers help them do this, and actually encourage this behavior in a lot of cases. These are the lawyers that give ALL lawyers a bad reputation and name. Personal Injury lawyers who advertise like crazy on t.v and radio are the worst, by far. Legitimate personal injury lawyers don't need to advertise like that. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*Ed, and all...A lot of what you raise to question the verdict is the sort of thing one would expect Senco to have raised in its defense, basically that the product was not "defective" (a legal term) and/or that operator negligence was the fundamental cause of the accident (sometimes accidents happen that are no one's fault). Evidently these defense were rejected.Juries are often ridiculed but many studies have shown that on average they do a decent job, or at least that their verdicts are wuite similar to those of judges sitting alone, and that in fact their awards tend to be less than those of judges. All that the media reports, however, are the freakish sensational cases which do little to illustrate the system as a whole.The sort of accounting James describes does in fact go on, as it must. Manufacturers try to anticipate the hazards inherent in their products and design against the, but sometimes the cost is too great to market a competitive product with certain safety features. The law does not expect them to take every safety precaution, only the reasonable ones.An infamous case of such a corporate judgment was the Ford Pinto, where Ford decided to save something like $7 per vehicle (this is a big amount to an automobile mfr because margins are thin) by omitting a device that would have prevented the gas tank fires the Pinto was notorious for when rear-ended. So for $7 pr car the company accepted that they would pay X number of settlements where Pinto occupants were burned alive. Grisly, and they received terribly damaging press for it. But a cynic could argue they just erred in their analysis, that $7 per car WASN'T enough to offset the settlements PLUS public relations damage if they were caught.As for the McDonald's case, it is very good example of mediocre reportage -- it just didn't happen like it was told, as I've complained before ... though I believed what was reported until a couple of lawyer friends fillied me in and I did my own research, reading among other things a food inductry report on how quickly hot liquids cause scalding. The Mcdonalds coffee was 190°, 50° hotter than we usually make coffee at home, and literally killed the tissue in the plaintiff's crotch. (2nd and 3rd burns requiring skin grafts).What do I think of the verdict? I really don't know enough, all that was repeated above were the basic facts and not the legal theories or more than a bit of the factual testimony. Doubtlessly they had expert testimony, diagrams, information on competitive products, etc., etc. Armchair quarterbacking is tempting but often mistaken. If this case came to me on appeal I'd have the benefit of each side's legal arguments and all the materials, which as James notes often run to many boxes of paper (the only risky part of being a lawyer -- lifting transcripts).
*Shortly after an article I wrote for FHB reviewing Framing Nailers (#105) hit the shelves, I got a call from an attorney in Boston. He was 'feeling' me out. He was looking for expert witnesses to testify in court about the safety of framing nailers.I later found out that he was top in his field and specialized in sueing companies who's products were somehow involved in injuries to users. He's made lots of money bring suits in nailer injury cases.I guess I didn't tell him what he wanted to hear so he never called back.Most tools we use to build homes are pretty cheap to mass produce. We, the end users, pay a premium for tools because of settlements and judgements. It's terrible when someone is injured by a faulty tool but I think it's rare. Most tool injuries are due to user error, improper use or poor maintenance.
*Mike----If you wanted the job, you could have told him your fees and per diem, etc. Trial lawyers want to know you are in it for the money just like them. Last week, Toshiba settled a case in Beaumont,Texas for $1.9 Billion (with a "B"). The defendant claimed there was a program glitch, but it wasn't proven. Beaumont is a liberal minority town, Toshiba's fears had basis. This is nothing more than legalized extortion. Trial lawyer's fees should be capped. ...... JRNicholson
*Uh-oh, looks like we're shifting to another 'lawyer' thread. Before we get there ... construction tools are inherently dangerous and you have to consider that these companies operate in the shadow of litigation, that is they design and maintain the quality of their product partly out of awareness that product liability could destroy them or their reputation. Thus the threat of comeuppance has some good influence, encouraging better safety devices, better warnings, and driving unsafe devices from the market.I'm totally willing to believe this Senco verdict is bogus ... but I can't assume either way and verdict suggests there is a danger. So my first comment here was a bunch of questions -- is there more to know, or should we just forget about it? Senco is a quality name -- did they slip up?As for lawyers, well all sides have lawyers working for them. Trial lawyers do sometimes luck out, but you must remember that their contingency fees in cases won have to cover the costs and working time of all the cases lost. If the system does not keep the unethical lawyers in check -- and they are often going up against big companies with immense legal resources -- then the system should be changed, not fees arbitrarily capped. Fees/recoveries can be capped only if the damages defendants inflict are also miraculously capped. Consider the tobacco companies, who have pulled many of the same tricks as did the asbestos inductries, knowing the risk of their product long before anyone else did and keeping it quiet -- even lobbying the lie that it was safe.I know some lawyers who work on contingency, and it is no lush lifestyle. Also, this is the only lawyer you will likely be able to afford if you get hurt and blow your cash on medical costs. In England, where contingency is considered unethical, poor plaintiffs just can't sue, period.Mike, most of the tools may be great and most accidents due to operator error (though design has to reduce the chances of such error), but some are not. Imagine that the system made product liability suits very hard to bring and some company stopped putting contact safeties on their guns "because it was too expensive." Or circular saws without guards, cheap ladders, etc. These things were not developed out of the goodness of the companies' hearts.Whether litigation really increases the cost of the tool all that much -- I'd like to see some proof, not anecdotal but statistical. This has been a frequent unsubstantiated claim of business leaders who'd like to see tort law "reformed" to improve their bottom line.
*I agree that I feel sorry for the poor guy. But......personal responsibility seems out of style these days. Maybe that suit is why the Senco framing gun I bought 6 months ago told me in about a half dozen places that they would retrofit a single fire trigger for free. Guess I should have taken them up on it. After firing a 16d into the palm of my hand (floor joists 16" o.c. are just right for the thing to recoil between and double fire) I didn't try to sue senco. The gun did exactly as it was supposed to. I was doing something STUPID. Still have my bounce trigger, but being a little safer these days.
*well i am in the same department as you wedge, except i bought a paslode framer and i was end shooting 2x's and pulled the trigger it shot,bounced off the edge and hit the corner,fired again, then i put the gun down and oppps whats this nail sticking out of my hand hmmm! should this hurt my partner almost blacked out, it didnt hurt, but i was trying to go into shock, lucky me, the nail went between the bone on the palm and the skin. just blood and a hole, i made a construction bandage and finished up and it was sore the next day and okay the day after that.i guess my point is that this is the only gun i didnt fiddle with the safety, and it got me, yes i know i have kids now and that is why i left it stock. just like that guy that was shot in the head, he might have been a good responsible carpenter but freak things happen. so now my safety is adjusted and i pull the hose off every time i put it down, and it doesnt double fire anymore. i treat it like a regular fire arm. this has proven to be a gray area with me because i know its dangerous both ways but i am curios to hear what you guys think.
*Did anyone else hear that ITW (makers of Paslode nailers) has bought out Duofast and is now in the process of buying Senco as well? Repair shop just told me this this week.MD
*Andrew,Yeah, I remember you explaining that McDonald's thing. But I still have trouble with it. Coffee is i supposedto be hot. And, IMHO, you are just asking for trouble when you get your food in a drive-thru and/or try and eat and/or drink in your car. Now maybe there should be a case because MdD's doesn't have a sign in the drive thru lane stating that spills occur.Now, I'd feel a little differently about it it the woman had been a regular customer and the coffee was consistently tepid, and then on that day it was 190 degrees.The other amazing thing about that case is that McDonald's actually served something that was hot.When I had the pizza delivery, we would have customers call and complain that the delivered pizza was too hot. I always gave McDonald's credit for that. They claim hot food, serve it warm, so when we claimed hot food, people assumed warm. I ran tongue in cheek radio ads cautioning people that the pizzas might be too hot.Oh yeah, I will agree that it was stupid and short sighted of McDonald's to not pay the $60,000.Rich Beckman
*Eek! I'm wondering why my Senco finish nailer came with bounce fire to begin with. These really are firearm-level tools. I almost pegged my helper with a Paslode deflection fire the the other day....
*I talked to a friend in law school who used to serve tables about the McDonalds thing, and she said, sure, people are crazy. She'd have people complain the soup wasn't hot enough, and she'd zap it in the microwave until it was boiling over, and they still wouldn't be happy. Go figure.I think we've all stuck a cup of fresh coffee between our legs driving through the drive-thru. I just never thought of it as a hand grenade before.
*We've always chalked up gun accidents to "operator error," and that was being polite. I've used a lot of different nail guns in over 20 years, have owned 8 Sencos, and have always found them to be the safest guns available. I too, am sorry for the fellow, and Senco had probably banked on this happening sometime, so we had already paid for it somehow.The real kicker is, before hand guns and assault weapons are seriously regulated, nail guns will be.Sequentially nailing, BB
*Since my only nail gun injury was with a Senco that had no clear way of telling which way it fired(bounce or trigger) and that in fact would fire either way I am surprised at their defense here. From my point of view nail guns, along with other pieces of construction equipment, could be made to have clearer, safer and more reliable operation. That they double fire at all is a design flaw that fails to take into account real world operation. Proper design would reduce the human factor and greatly improve the likelyhood of having all parts and pieces to enjoy the grandkids. After all construction is one of the most dangerous occupations around surpasing firemen, police and many others.That these haven't been redesigned is due to the economic decisions of the manufacturers and the mistaken macho of workers. Many other occupations have had significant safety increases by using standardized operation and control layout, fail-safe construction, and improved materials. Instead of this construction tool mfg use the sham of legalistic labels which are cheap but largely ineffective.Guys and gals there isn't any reason for serious injury or death just to make money. And that is exactly what we are doing when it comes to the foundation, working at something to make money. So, lets keep the pressure on via the only way it counts, the profit margin.
*JR Nicholson, Please don't take this wrong. I am not mad, or even a little bit peeved. I just ask that you please verify your facts BEFORE you wrongly label my hometown "a liberal minority town". Your facts regarding the Toshiba case are dead wrong. You didn't even get the amount right. The fact that Beaumont has a population of about 120,000, and the fact that some of the richest lawyers in Texas live here, does not mean that we are a "liberal minority town". This is nothing more than typical stereotyping. We are, in fact, a very conservative city located smack dab in the Bible belt. Beaumont's population is less than 40% minority (African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics), so how could we possibly be "a liberal minority town"? The rich lawyers got rich long ago, and moved here. We happen to have one of the few U.S. District Courts in Texas, so there are bound to be lawsuits filed here on a regular basis. Here are the facts of the Toshiba suit, which by the way was settled, not litigated.Nov. 2 — Toshiba Corp.’s massive $2.1 billion settlement forusing a potentially flawed floppy-disk controller is alreadycausing ripples, which may yet turn into tidal waves. OnSunday night, four new suits were filed in U.S. DistrictCourt in Beaumont, Texas, against PC makersHewlett-Packard Co., Compaq Computer Corp., NECPackard-Bell and e-Machines Inc.TOSHIBA ON FRIDAY SETTLED a class-action suitthat alleged it had knowingly sold computers with a floppy-disk controller that couldcause data loss. All four suits seek class-action status, and were filed by Reaud, Morgan &Quinn, of Beaumont, Texas, which represented plaintiffs in the suit against Toshiba. Thesuits seeks unspecified damages from the companies. The Texas court that accepted the filings against HP, Compaq, NEC Packard-Bell ande-Machines is the same one that would have heard the Toshiba case, had it not beensettled. According to the complaints, which ask for class-action status to be granted, “Plaintiff hasobtained documents that show that Defendant has known of faulty FCDs (floppy diskcontrollers) such as those at issue in this lawsuit for an extended period of time.”Toshiba agrees to a settlement on laptops in $2.1 billionpactThe case appears to closely follow the case Toshiba chose to settle, and a Compaq officialcalled the suit a “copycat” filing.“It appears to be a copycat suit to the recent case settled by Toshiba,” said Alan Hodel, aCompaq spokesman. He said Compaq plans to fight the case in court. We believe the vague claims that are outlined in the complaint are completely baseless andwithout merit.” Hodel noted that the Toshiba case revolved around microcode issues specific to Toshiba.Compaq is confident that its products “don’t have that problem,” he said. A Hewlett-Packard spokeswoman declined comment, saying that the company had not yetseen the suit. Reaud lawyers did not return phone calls. The suit against Toshiba, filed in Federal District Court in Texas in March, alleges that afloppy disk controller problem in Toshiba laptop computers built as far back as 1987 cancause data corruption or data loss under certain conditions. The number of affectedToshiba laptops is an estimated 5 million to 6 million
*Ah, those tedious old facts.BTW, a billion ain't what it used to be. Oil companies deal in them every day.thx, James.
*Hey Andrew, Seems like every new merger or buyout sets a new record. It won't be long until these mergers and buyouts start hitting the trillion mark. According to the local news, in the last ten years here in Southeast Texas (home to most of the major oil companies and petrochemical companies) the selling, merging, and buying of these conglomerates has reached the 3 trillion mark. Most recently was the Exxon/Mobil merger. I think what got the number so high was the fact that every time there is a big merger, the gov't makes them sell off some of their holdings and subsidiaries (to keep them from becoming a monopoly). So every time there's a merger here, it's selling time. I remember being in absolute awe when I would hear about a 250 million dollar deal. That's peanuts nowadays.Just a thought...James DuHamel
*So, I was a few hundred thousand off, sue me! I grew up in Beaumont, and am aware of the jury pool one would expect there. I do appreciate the facts, though. What really interests me are the lawyer fees and amounts received by the plaintiffs. I have been sent checks for lowball amounts because I unwillingly was party to some class action suit somewhere. As I hold this check, for say, $2.93, I wonder; "HOW MUCH DID THOSE LAWYERS MAKE?" So, how much DID those lawyers make? ...........JRNicholson
*Yea, the M&A (mergers'n'acquisitions) thing is going strong, a lot of it generating huge fees for the middlemen and ego boosts for the execs. We're seeing some more action in spinoffs, too, as in HP's separation of the Agilent division, but the general movement is towards consolidation. All the same, it's nothing like the 80's were.As a firm believer in the cautious but firm administration of antitrust law, I watch with concern. The suit against Microsoft is pivotal for Antitrust and whether they regain some of the esteem they lost in the last decade, when the Administration held the in as low regard as Civil Rights. (I interviewed for a job with Antitrust, and would still like to work there -- tough stuff to do right, at the heart of the American business juggernaut.)Do average Americans care? Look how they feel about ATM fees from the big banks!