As recently mentioned, the Bosch Reaxx portable table saw, a new model that features flesh-detection and blade-avoidance tech, is expected to hit the market in just a few weeks.
When looking into the SawStop vs. Bosch lawsuit, which still seems silly to me since the Bosch tech looks completely different, I discovered some rather troubling trends.
Advertisement
Cases were constructed around the argument that brands were liable for users’ injuries because the saws didn’t incorporate SawStop-like flesh-detection and blade-braking technologies.
“Negligently defective” was how they described a traditional table saw.
In one of my posts about the Reaxx, someone made the analogy as to whether someone can sue an auto manufacturer if their car lacked collision-avoidance braking.
What I found, in my recent search for a new SUV, is that a lot of brands offer collision detection braking, typically only on top-end trim levels, or as part of safety tech packages. But they still offer it in some capacity.
So that got me thinking. In a table saw injury lawsuit, where the main argument focuses on whether a brand is negligent for not offering flesh-detection safety features, the argument could or should have been made that a user could have bought a SawStop if they wanted such technology and features. Brands can’t exactly say that, but perhaps their defense would be stronger if they offered such technologies in a saw.
Until now, I had assumed that Bosch’s development of the Reaxx saw stemmed from a desire for the brand to offer a saw with their own flesh-detection and blade-avoidance technologies. Step 1: Develop competitive table saw safety tech; Step 2: Sell saws; Step 3: Earn more revenue.
Advertisement
Makes sense, right? Most brands design and market tools because they want to sell them.
But, could it be that part of Bosch’s reasoning for developing and marketing the Reaxx saw is to reduce their potential for liability?
When a brand comes out with a new tool, selling the tools is usually going to be the biggest motivation. But it doesn’t end there. Maybe a brand wants to build brand awareness, or maybe they want to build brand loyalty. That sometimes factors into whether a tool moves past initial development and makes it to market.
Okay, so let’s say a user removes the safety guard of a different Bosch saw. Or maybe a Skil saw. They remove the riving knives too. Then they raise the saw blade to 3-inches to cut 1/2″ plywood. (Good practice says to only raise the blade as high as you need to, which is typically only slightly higher than the thickness of material being cut.)
A lapse of judgement, attention, or a combination of other factors and bad luck, and the user suffers an injury.
It has been popular for injury lawyers to claim manufacturers as being negligent for not offering table saw safety tech. In some of the cases, this seems to be supported by “expert testimony” that brands’ legal representation had passive aggressively suggested as being “conspiratorial.”
With the Reaxx table saw in Bosch’s lineup, the argument of a saw being “negligently defective” pretty much goes out the window. Bosch could make the argument that “we offer a saw with flesh detection and blade braking technology, but the user chose not to buy it.” Or something to that effect. I’m not a lawyer, but I would assume they’d make a similar argument.
So with all that in mind, and what I’ve read in table saw injury lawsuit documents, I’m left wondering whether legal protection, or reduction in alleged liability, for lack of a better description, had anything to do with the creation and launching of the Bosch Reaxx table saw.
This is all just me thinking aloud. Maybe I’m completely off base here, and this never factored into Bosch’s decision to develop the Reaxx, not even a little bit.
Here’s something else to consider: how will the Bosch Reaxx influence the industry? Will there be even more pressure now, for Dewalt and other table saw makers to come out with their own flesh-detecting and blade-avoidance technologies?
Oh, and the Reaxx is now available for ordering on Amazon. The saw is still expected to launch in June.
Buy Now(via Amazon)
fred
Interesting speculations which may well have been a part of the Bosch reasoning – so maybe we’ll see others jump on this too – which would not be a bad thing for consumers. Like you say there may be brand awareness and loyalty motivations that incented Bosch’s introduction of the Reaxx – and it may be akin to what you have observed about new car safety technology.
BTW – for quite a few years advances in automobile technology offerings seemed a bit ho-hum to me – but recent advances IMO make a case for buying a new car. My 2016 Accord EXL has cameras at the rear and passenger side, front collision warning and something they call collision mitigation braking system, lane departure warning (sometimes a spurious nuisance), something they call road departure mitigation and tire pressure monitoring. This was all standard on the model – and I believe the only things added to the car on the lot that I bought were rear collision warning sensors, wheel locks and floor mats.
While I did not shop around looking specifically at different make/models for safety features, I’m glad that they seem to be included by Honda. I don’t know if more would have been included if I had bought an Acura , a Lexus, Audi or other luxury brand – but I might look when I’m ready to trade in my older Accord. Knock on wood that I haven’t had an accident since 1971 – but I still think the new technology may really be making cars safer. I’m hoping that all this new electronic gear doesn’t compromise reliability.
Back on topic to the Reaxx saw – If I were still running a business – I’d be buying a Reaxx to try it out – and then taking a hard look at swapping out my other jobsite saws.
Anton
And when we have completely self driving cars all of those safety features will become obsolete.
Pete
Well if we replaced our labor with robots we wouldnt need flesh detecing saws!
Steven
Why stop at table saws? What about mitre saws, skill saws, jigsaws, sawzalls, drills….hammers, knives? At what tool do we draw the line of PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR DOING. Accidents happen when you get complacent and too comfortable with a tool that can cause physical devastation. I am guilty too, so simmer down.
I recall having an in depth conversation with an rcmp about vehicles, and his words were “vehicles have become too safe that negligent or intoxicated drivers can survive at virtually any speed because of safety devices”
Tools demand respect (cars, saws etc)
Suppose the american way is to just sue the tool manufacturer instead of admitting personal fault.
Stuart
Unless I’m remembering incorrectly, tables saws cause more injuries than any other power tool.
Not only that, table saw injuries tend to be life-changing.
Robert
Then you have not googled “Lathe accidents” There is one that’s pretty horrific. Nothing a table saw could ever do to a person. I recommend you take my word for it and not look.
Jon
Table saws are much more common than lathes.
Stuart
Especially the ones that can do lethal damage.
Robert
There should be some type of training besides a user manual in five different languages. Yes of course it’d be impossible to train everyone to operate a piece of machinery but it should be mandatory.
I have seen motorcycle dealers place 18 year old young men on a 200hp 400pound sport bike capable of exceeding 200mph for as little as $300 down only to richocet off some streetlight 2 weeks later.
I myself have a router table that I set up only to learn quickly that feeding a piece of wood can create a bullet that was capable of putting a hole in my garage wall. Luckily I was standing in front as it rocketed out of my hands. Only way I could learn was to experience it and not get hurt the first time.
BikerDad
Who says they are “stopping” at table saws? The practical requirements of packaging and the mechanisms of the tools mean that different engineering is necessary for each type of tool. For one thing, the only tool that can use the “dropping blade” paradigm is a table saw. Let’s consider for a moment the band saw. How, exactly, are you going to stop a blade that is friction driven by two flywheels? AND one where there are multiple metal (i.e. conducting) elements that will routinely come into contact with the blade? Oh, and don’t forget that the blade size can vary greatly.
Likewise, big challenges for a circular saw. False firings, absorbing the energy of a instant stop without causing problems of its own, and of course, simply fitting it all in a usable portable package. All this in a tool where 95% of the units sold are under $150 dollars.
mizzourob
Stuart…. That sentiment is on par with my thought L, that it does not matter if they sell any or how the lawsuit goes, if it prevents a single lawsuit, then the financial investment is worth it. I feel horrible for saying a single lawsuit instead of a “single accident” but lawsuits cost them money… accidents do not.
Brian
Complicated question, one that very likely can only be settled by a judge.
There is legal precedent that products must be “optimally safe”, which is defined as:
“spend money on product safety so long as the marginal cost of additional safety measures is less than the expected reduction of product-related accident costs.”
Good luck determining that, at the saw stop premium, it might be a hard sell.
Optional safety equipment does NOT always absolve responsibility, its gone both ways in the past. The test is as follows.
(1) the buyer is knowledgeable about the product and is aware of available safety features; (2) there are some uses for which it is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional safety equipment; and (3) the buyer can balance the risks and benefits of not purchasing the safety device in question
As these devices become more common and less expensive, the obligation will shift and eventually, someone will win their lawsuit and the industry will have to catch up.
MT_Noob
Interesting musing. But personally I doubt that “you should/could have bought our safer model” would ever be a legal defense. I’d think each product has to stand on it’s own. (Note I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv) But then again maybe it was a factor.
Perhaps it was more of a case of trying to preemptively self-police before the industry gets hit with more government mandated safety features. I can imagine the day when table saws will have a sensor that won’t let the saw run unless the riving knife/blade guard is in place. (Should I patent that idea and sue the pants off anyone trying to improve table saw safety?) Or worse yet, will table saws eventually have black boxes that track what you were doing in the event of injury? (It could track blade height, angle, fence distance, guards in place or not, estimate feed rate based on motor load etc.)
My above crazy ideas aside, I am actually looking forward to getting the Reaxx. As a new woodworker, it would be the perfect beginner saw for me that is also portable. I wasn’t too crazy about the fence and overall fit and finish of the portable sawstop when I looked at it so I think the Bosch might be a better choice for me. also I think the non-destructive safety feature is what I would prefer. I can’t wait to check one out in a store as soon as they hit the market. Although part of me wonders if I should wait for the next version… decisions decisions.
I’m still not sure if your musing was part of the original reasoning, but either way it is interesting to think about it out loud.
BikerDad
Interesting musing. But personally I doubt that “you should/could have bought our safer model” would ever be a legal defense.
Of course it’s a factor. If the plaintiff’s argument is “you could and should have built a safer model”, then one’s the safer model is out there, the onus is on the buyer. Sadly, too much of it comes down to the glibness of the attorneys and the mindset of the jurors.
RKA
Well, Bosch is still selling saws without the feature, so they can’t have deemed them too much of a liability risk. And if brand B already offered a saw with the safety tech, the consumer already had a choice. Nope, it’s just business. Bosch set the price at $1500, no discounting. They are betting that the extra $700 is worth it to a business owner looking to limit THEIR risk. Maybe we’ll see some movement on that price when there is more competition.
Jacob Edmond
Honestly, at first glance I would have assumed the opposite. Offering a more expensive saw with additional safety features (or similarly a vehicle trim model) while still selling less expensive models without it, would open the company up to greater liability. The high end trim models are the ones that get all of the marketing push normally, so a plaintiff could simply allege that they bought a Bosch because of its reputation for safety having these safety features, and that that technology should have been on every model.
RC Ward
This is a step in the right direction. Every Table saw should have this feature. The more that have it the cheaper it will get and it will be a win for everybody. #TIACREW
John
I think this is more about licensing than anything. Originally SawStop was going to sell and license the technology not the saw itself. They make tables saws yes, but the money maker was going to be licensing it to all the manufacturers. What they did though was use some underhanded way of then forcing adaptation of their technology and then at the same time, suing any competitor and similar technology to keep patent hold on the licensing model. Bosch, either because they didn’t agree with the way SawStop works (For example SawStop’s method is completely destructive brake thrown into the blade) or that they just didn’t want to pay licensing fees to SawStop built their own method. The investment in doing their own which could then be used on their entire line likely was cheaper than paying a forever license to SawStop.
Now what will be interesting will be what the other Manufactures do and I imagine they are watching these cases really closely. They watched to see if Bosch could successfully avoid patent to SawStop as well. If Bosch skirted any patent issues, then it gives precedence that another company can make their own. Then they will balance where it makes more sense to make their own system or be forced to have to license out to stay “compliant” so why bother investing in their own research.
This is so much like the “Made For Apple” license certification. Certifications and licenses seem to start out like a great idea, “hey lets make a certification for safety” and then twisted around to lock everyone into a monopoly “now lets make a law requiring you to be licensed by only us”.
William Butler
Dewalt has a table saw almost identical to the DWE7491RS but with a feature that warns you if the guard is not properly installed/missing. However, it is $220 more.
http://www.amazon.com/DEWALT-DWE7499GD-10-Inch-Jobsite-Rolling/dp/B00KS6FEDE
I can see how flesh detecting tech. can be good for schools and the average homeowner but it just does not seem practical for the pros. SawStop ruins the blade and the cartridge so you need a spare of each at all times to keep working. At least the Bosch can be used twice and saves the blade.
fred
Pros don’t have accidents? We had an excellent safety record over a lot of years an many hours of work with jobsite table saws. I like to think it had something to do with training, vigilance, retraining and empowering everyone to call a timeout if they saw an unsafe practice. We told folks “you are your brother’s keeper – and he yours.” I’d much prefer to retrain folks after a cartridge activates than after some other near miss or worse yet a trip to the ER – but that just my opinion – and I’m not so naïve to believe that our good safety record did not include a measure of luck .
Kevin
In woodworking circles this discussion is the equivalent of bringing up abortion at a dinner party. It has actually been banned from most WW discussion boards because of the inevitable deterioration of the conversation.
Here is some good background on one catalytic event in this ongoing drama:
http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/26939/more-details-on-the-carlos-osorio-tablesaw-lawsuit
Stuart
Yep, I remember posting about the Osorio case – https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/yet-another-table-saw-safety-lawsuit/%3C/a%3E .
Completely ridiculous if you ask me.
JGonzo
My guess is that it’s largely related to impending OSHA and CPSC rules regarding table saws. SawStop has been HEAVILY lobbying to have flesh detection/blade retraction tech a requirement of the CPSC and simultaneously defending their patent pretty aggressively. Their chances of success on the latter are pretty low (“look and feel” precedent applies, provided that the Bosch tech is actually home-grown, it will be hard to prove that SawStop should get a monopoly on an entire type of tool), but the former seems inevitable. My main hope is that economies of scale will make prices come down, because SawStop products are damn near usurious.
Expect Bosch to defend the lawsuit pretty easily, or drag the proceedings out to the extent that SawStop’s patent more or less runs out.
J
Patrick
Liability cases from power tools including table saws are a minuscule part of the operating costs of a power tool company. Bosch’s reason for developing the Reaxx was to offer a new, marketable feature and compete in a space whose leader operated as a legal douchebag with NO competition.
It’s going to be a huge battle for SawStop from this point forward – Bosch is a giant conglomerate with probably the most popular contractor saw on the market (4100), with probably the best stand on the market.