safety mechanism failed

[OHRoadwarrior]

This is sounding more and more like OP is trying to research a scenario where liability can be achieved.

 

[Indiana Filer]

I would imagine your improper use of the crowbar to pull the saw will be seen as contributory. You lack common sense, resulting in an injury.

 

[quincy]

There have been several table saws that have been recalled in the past over amputations caused by defective safety features, primarily failure of blade guards, but none of the recalls that I located have involved the safety switch. I went back eight years to check recall history.

Although I have a feeling that the saw is not the problem, whenever there is a severe accident that causes an injury like an amputation when using equipment, it is always smart to have the equipment checked out for a manufacturer defect.

Because of the high cost of the medical treatment Joe has had and will have in the future, the cost of an attorney consultation will be minor in comparison. Joe should probably explore all options and manufacturer liability is one option to explore.

 

[justalayman]

Not disagreeing one bit but just prepping him for reality as well. His contribution to the accident is major.

Additionally his scenario sounds very unlikely. Yes, I got my circular saw out at midnight to test the torque action theory. He loses on that argument. I allowed the saw to move and it just didn't. The mass of the blade and rotating parts of the motor are minimal compared to the rest of the saw so it would not cause what he claimed happened.

I'm still not clear where he inserted his finger to cause the injury as well. There is a blade guard under the plate that would prevent contact with the blade under the plate.

He also did not check the safety since the accident. Granted he is injured but that is something I would be checking quite quickly after such an injury and something I would definitely be doing before I seriously considered a lawsuit against anybody.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Before or after you figured out how to break the safety switch?

Not disagreeing one bit but just prepping him for reality as well. His contribution to the accident is major.

Additionally his scenario sounds very unlikely. Yes, I got my circular saw out at midnight to test the torque action theory. He loses on that argument. I allowed the saw to move and it just didn't. The mass of the blade and rotating parts of the motor are minimal compared to the rest of the saw so it would not cause what he claimed happened.

I'm still not clear where he inserted his finger to cause the injury as well. There is a blade guard under the plate that would prevent contact with the blade under the plate.

He also did not check the safety since the accident. Granted he is injured but that is something I would be checking quite quickly after such an injury and something I would definitely be doing before I seriously considered a lawsuit against anybody.

 

[quincy]

... He also did not check the safety since the accident. Granted he is injured but that is something I would be checking quite quickly after such an injury and something I would definitely be doing before I seriously considered a lawsuit against anybody.

I think I would not want to get anywhere near the saw after an accident that amputated my finger.

I don't, by the way, disagree with others' assessment of Joe's chances of finding the manufacturer liable. But many many people have been successful in suits against companies when their own actions were major contributors to the accidents (e.g., high speed drunk driving accident when no-seat belts were worn, with the car company found at fault for the explosive crash and deaths that followed).

 

[justalayman]

quincy;3273134]I think I would not want to get anywhere near the saw after an accident that amputated my finger.

never heard of getting back on the horse that threw you?

It's not like it's a car named Christine after all.

but before he even speaks to a lawyer he should know if the safety is currently not working. If it works, OP will have a difficult time arguing it failed one time only and that one time was when he was plying it with a crowbar and still be able to argue it failed at all. More likely the manufacturer will use that crowbar to show how the safety was overcome by an excessive amount of force was used on the trigger or that it actually could have depressed the safety as well as pulling on the switch.

additionally, the saw is 5-8 years old. Is every part of a product supposed to last forever lest it be considered defective for these purposes? Unless the OP can show a trend of this model of saw showing the safety is known to have failed within a reasonable time, they are going to have a difficult time proving liability based on a defective design. Machines wear out. That does not make them defective in their design.

I don't, by the way, disagree with others' assessment of Joe's chances of finding the manufacturer liable. But many many people have been successful in suits against companies when their own actions were major contributors to the accidents (e.g., high speed drunk driving accident when no-seat belts were worn, with the car company found at fault for the explosive crash and deaths that followed)

The tool was not used as the instructions provide for. Using a machine contrary to the instructions is a real problem in liability claims.

additionally, when a plaintiff wins even if their actions were contributory are usually reduced based on the comparative negligence of the plaintiff but also, that the plaintiff did not act in a way that actually caused the injury. In this situation, the OP may a have been the total cause for the safety not working. A circular saw trigger and safety are not designed to withstand the use of a crowbar on them. They are designed to have a human finger as the tool used on them.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

My FIL lost half of one finger because he was not paying attention with a saw. He has become the most precise and careful woodworker I know.

 

[quincy]

... before he even speaks to a lawyer he should know if the safety is currently not working. ...
additionally, the saw is 5-8 years old. Is every part of a product supposed to last forever lest it be considered defective for these purposes? ...

The tool was not used as the instructions provide for. Using a machine contrary to the instructions is a real problem in liability claims.

additionally, when a plaintiff wins even if their actions were contributory are usually reduced based on the comparative negligence of the plaintiff but also, that the plaintiff did not act in a way that actually caused the injury. In this situation, the OP may a have been the total cause for the safety not working. A circular saw trigger and safety are not designed to withstand the use of a crowbar on them. They are designed to have a human finger as the tool used on them.

Indiana's Product Liability Act is Section 34-20-1-1 et seq of the Indiana Code. Section 34-20-4-1 states that a product is defective if it is "unreasonably dangerous to the expected user or consumer when used in reasonably expectable ways of handling or consumption." (the bolding is mine)

Under Indiana Code 34-6-2-146, a product is considered unreasonably dangerous if the use of the product "exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer ... with the ordinary knowledge about the product's characteristics common to the community of consumers."

Indiana Code 34-20-6-4 addresses the misuse of a product, which is any use not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer.

Product liability cases in Indiana have a 2 year statute of limitations after the cause of action accrues or within 10 years after product delivery to the consumer (see Indiana Code 34-20-3-1), so an action filed against a manufacturer over an injury from use of an 8 year old product would fall within this time period.

Indiana is a comparative fault state.

I agree that it should be known whether the safety is in working condition prior to Joe consulting with an attorney. I still think that, whenever there is an injury suffered of the sort experienced by Joe, a consultation with an attorney is a good idea.

 

[justalayman]

It never hurts to speak with an attorney so sure do it.



Thanks for the code on the 10 years. Didn't see that one but did see the other regarding the reasonable. Now, to me, grabbing a saw with a crow bar is beyond reasonable but then, just because I am in the trades, doesn't mean I havent seen that sort of thing, or worse.

The other part that I am not clear on is where he stuck his finger to get cut. Circular saws have a blade guard on the specifically protect against an accidental cut from the part of the blade that extends below the plate.

And the the claim that the starting torque of the saw caused it to rise up. Physics suggest it is not going to happen. The body of the saw, if there was actually enough force to move it,
Would spin down in the front, up in the back but as I said, when I grabbed my several horsepower circular saw to experiment ,
It didn't move at all.

 

[quincy]

It never hurts to speak with an attorney so sure do it.



Thanks for the code on the 10 years. Didn't see that one but did see the other regarding the reasonable. Now, to me, grabbing a saw with a crow bar is beyond reasonable but then, just because I am in the trades, doesn't mean I havent seen that sort of thing, or worse.

The other part that I am not clear on is where he stuck his finger to get cut. Circular saws have a blade guard on the specifically protect against an accidental cut from the part of the blade that extends below the plate.

And the the claim that the starting torque of the saw caused it to rise up. Physics suggest it is not going to happen. The body of the saw, if there was actually enough force to move it,
Would spin down in the front, up in the back but as I said, when I grabbed my several horsepower circular saw to experiment ,
It didn't move at all.

Like you, I am a bit confused how the accident/amputation could have happened as described but I guess if it did, it did.

I am not sure I would find the use of a crowbar to reach for the saw "reasonable," either, but there is a lot that I find unreasonable and, as I have discovered is often the case in law, what I think doesn't seem to matter all that much.

As an aside, my last post was primarily to bump a spam thread off the main board - I only decided to add the code numbers because I had some time to look them up. I tend to agree with your assessment based on what has been presented by Joe.