6A: The Schmidt Firm, a personal injury law firm, writes on their website, “…manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw). Recently, a man who filed a table saw amputation lawsuit was awarded $1.5 million after the court found that table saw manufacturers were liable for not including the safety feature.”
6B: Manufacturers refused to use SawStop technology on their products because of the “unreasonable” price increase of each table saw which would be a mere $100 compared to the millions of dollars lost in a single lawsuit.
6C: This is a factual claim because of the evidence listed.
6D: The SawStop technology (which can save 4,000 amputations per year) would cost table saw manufacturers around $100 per table saw to implement this technology. This does not bode well for these companies because they do not want to lose profit. In one case, a man who lost his finger in a table saw incident filed a lawsuit against a table saw manufacturer because it is the companies duty to prevent injuries of any kind. That company lost $1.5 million in the lawsuit rather than $100 to provide the SawStop safety feature.
1A: Table saw manufacturers claim “If the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give [Stephen] Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry…”
1B: Manufacturers are worried that if the CPSC mandates SawStop tech for all table saws then Gass would have a monopoly over the industry until his patents expire.
1C: This is an opinionated claim formed by manufacturers.
1D: It is true that Gass’ invention is protected by legal patents which means that no one can create and implement the same idea to their table saws without facing legal ramifications. This could result in Gass jacking up the prices of this safe technology due to lack of competition.
1E: Gass’ oldest patents expire in the year 2021 which means other companies can design similar concepts of the SawStop feature. Also, Gass’ aim is to save people from suffering amputations and possibly living without fingers for the rest of their lives.
11A: Tom Corbett, a contractor who severed four fingers in an incident regarding a table saw states, “Back in the early 70s and 80s before there were airbags there was people getting killed ridiculously in car crashes and all of a sudden they have to have airbags in them they have to have safety equipment. I don’t see any differences for the saws.”
11B: Corbett compares the use of airbags and SawStop technology.
11C: This is a persuasive claim.
11D: Corbett emphasizes how imperative airbags are for automobiles. Before 1968, cars did not have mandatory airbags and the risk of fatality was evident. When airbags were deemed mandatory for all automobiles, fewer people were dying from car accidents. Corbett mentions that there is no difference when it comes to saw safety. He knows that every saw should have this technology. Corbett’s life changed forever because of the lack of modern safety technology.
9A: “I think we could argue about whether the law is wrong if you don’t believe that manufacturers should have an obligation to make their products reasonably safe…”
9B: Steve Gass believes that the law should require power tool manufacturers to make their products as safe as they possibly can.
9C: This is an opinionated claim.
9D: Manufacturers absolutely should use the technology that is available on the market to provide the safest product they can create. Companies must always keep their consumer’s best interest in mind when developing new tools or updating old ones. This will prevent the 4,000 amputations yearly and save companies millions in lawsuits.
12(Shop Owner)A: Gerald Wheeler, a wood shop owner explains the cost of injuries, “Not long before, two of his employees had been maimed within a few weeks of each other. Wheeler felt awful about the injuries, the loss of two good workers, the $95,000 in medical bills, and the doubling of his workers-compensation rates.”
12B: Wheeler speaks for most shop owners when he explains the struggle of paying so much money for compensation for something that could have easily been prevented.
12C: This claim is based on facts that can be backed up by statistics therefore it is a factual claim.
12D: It is extremely costly for shop owners to pay workers comp to those who have accidentally been involved in an accident at work. Wheeler also stats that he paid $95,000 in medical bills for two injured workers. He also must pay them their rate every week even though they are not working. Wheeler also had to find workers to replace the skilled ones that he already had. All of this could have been prevented if Wheeler obtained the SawStop tech and paid a little extra to save him thousands of dollars.