NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/woodwork/8753

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.5 KB

From: [e-mail] (Mike Peper)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:55:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Power Miter Box Safety Warning (plus flame warnings)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!hplvec!peper
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 62

I can't help it, I've gotta respond...

    In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scot Heath) writes:
    >QUIT WHINING!  No matter how hard any manufacturer tries to make his tools
Didn't sound to me like whining, sounded like a reasonable question attached
to a safety warning that might help someone.  Honestly, the only non-reasoned,
'whining' stuff I could see concerned diatribes against suing.

... various seemingly-gratuitous admonishments deleted...

    >little hard to swing into position? Did anything bind?  It would appear on
    >the surface for one to be showered with metal would require a persistant
    >effort on the part of the operator.  Haste almost always makes waste when
    >working with wood.
It would also appear at the surface that you were not there, and are probably
ill-able to make such assumptions, much less base judgements on them.

    >This is not meant to be a personal attack but in our sue happy society, I
It sure sounds like one to me...you are the first (but not the last) to mention
suing anyone, and I don't think it added anything constructive to the original
post (IMHO).

Gary Benson now writes:
    .... more stuff on suing, not germane to the original article....

                Don't you suppose that if instead of a shower of metal, Bill
   had lost a finger or a hand he wouldn't be posting but would be talking with
   an attorney.
No, I do not suppose this.  I have no idea, and neither do you.  We can both
make guesses, but neither have the right to 'suppose' anything.

    ... more stuff deleted ...

    My own message to Bill: no, Sears has no liability unless one of their
    official spokespersons is standing beside you saying, ok, yup, go ahead and
    do that, yes, that's fine, do that, yup, and so on.
This is, unfortunately, baloney. Anyone vaguely familiar with product liability
laws, *as they exist and are enforced today*, knows that Sears has oodles of
liability, even if they have no 'official spokespersons' on the same continent
as the saw in operation.  Probably, in my opinion, way too much liability (the
point I believe you are trying to make).
  You have assumed that the poster was asking 'liability' questions just
sniffing around for reasons to sue.  I would point out that he *may* have had
other intentions, such as informing Sears of the possibility of danger, getting
repair of the machine if it was faulty, etc.  My point is, neither you nor I
really have any idea what he intended.

    ... two stories of lost digits, which only further belabor the point made
        only by the commenters, and not the original poster...

It is amazing to me how you two have taken the original post, decided for
yourself what he really meant to say, and then flamed him for saying it.
I am not in favor of suing over everything, so please don't flame me in the
same spirit.  In fact, I have *no idea* what to think about this situation,
being as I believe there has not been near enough information presented to
form such an informed opinion.

I hope people with legitimate safety warnings are not dissuaded from posting
them to this group.  I value such information.

--Mike Peper