This Ad Showed Up When I logged onto Facebook Today.

[Roger Feeley]

I went to the website and found no evidence that SawStop is directly involved in the cases. Can you direct me to somewhere on the website that names SawStop as a plaintiff?

[Dave Verstraete]

What's Facebook? :>)

[Art Mann]

I went to the website and found no evidence that SawStop is directly involved in the cases. Can you direct me to somewhere on the website that names SawStop as a plaintiff?

Unscrupulous people can finance lawsuits without being listed as the plaintiff. I am not convinced that Stephen Gass did that in these cases but there is indisputable evidence that he has spent in the tens of thousands of dollars lobbying Congress to force all manufacturers to use his technology. It took me about 15 seconds on Google to find that evidence. That is why I will never buy a Sawstop product. I will not finance an entrepreneur who wants to manipulate the Government to forcibly limit choice and enrich himself in the name of safety.

[Kev Williams]

Two things come to mind---

1- What about the lawsuit Sawstop will face the first time it doesn't work? And there WILL be one that doesn't work--

2- Surgeons should threaten to sue Sawstop for taking all that sewing-fingers-back-on business away from them...

( <tongue firmly in cheek )

[Brian Ashton]

You can lawyers willing to sue for just about anything. There probably isn't a building material made on earth where there is not a law firm ready to sue for issues with the product.

A law firm flew their lawyers to Malaysia shortly after the plane went down to sign people up for lawsuits. There is some rule that they aren't even supposed to contact the victims for 45 days, but they are there already.

I can understand the anger over lawyers suing at the drop of a hat but if you're stuck at the opposite end of the spectrum you only wish you could have half of the justice system that Americans take for granted. Australia isn't completely at the other end where justice is completely absent but they're system isn't based upon an idea of justice for all. It's more about being satisfied with a certain level of failure or how much of society falling through the cracks can be tolerated -which in the case of australia it appears to be a lot. Take for instance queensland. The government here had decided to clear out the civil courts of on the job injury civil suits... Their intent was to reduce the number of claims going before the courts by 50%... They didn't come at if from a point of view of eliminating frivolous or bogus claims but instead drew a line as to what was an acceptable life long level of disability. Everything below that standard of assessment was denied access to the civil justice system even if they had a legitimate claim such as the employer was found deliberately negligent... They didn't stop the public from making claims but an employee isn't allowed to.

They go on and on here ad nauseam about how they don't want an american style civil justice system, but personally, after what I've experienced and seen with many others here I'll take the American system. It's not perfect, but it's better than what they've concocted here.

[Brian Ashton]

Unscrupulous people can finance lawsuits without being listed as the plaintiff. I am not convinced that Stephen Gass did that in these cases but there is indisputable evidence that he has spent in the tens of thousands of dollars lobbying Congress to force all manufacturers to use his technology. It took me about 15 seconds on Google to find that evidence. That is why I will never buy a Sawstop product. I will not finance an entrepreneur who wants to manipulate the Government to forcibly limit choice and enrich himself in the name of safety.

I agree, after his attempt to legislate in a monopoly I wouldn't be surprised if he's involved somehow.

As a consumer what he tried to do amounts to the unforgivable sin. I will never and will try to dissuade anyone from buying his products.

[Brian Ashton]

DON'T you remember the lawsuit over the woman holding her HOT coffee between her limbs, coffee are water

I do, and I can also remember the interview that laid out the facts regarding the case. She never went after Rotten Ronnies for that amount of money, the jury decided that was the amount they were going to punish RR with. She wanted 20k for surgery to correct severe burns to her legs. If I remember correctly the burns were that bad that she needed skin grafts. They told her to get stuffed... The jury awarded that in part because RR was judged to be negligent in that it had happened at that restaurant before and they chose to disregard the warning that their water/coffee temperature was way too hot and would cause severe burns if spilt on skin... The jury had decided the only way to get big business to pay attention was to award a penalty that would do what it was intended to do - punish them into making the correct choices in the future.