Should tool/machine manufacturers be held responsible for any level off safety?

[johnny means]

No specific brands, cases or persons allowed. Some recent threads, we all know which ones, got me wondering about where I stand.

[Larry Edgerton]

I didn't vote because I do not like the question as it is worded. Should a company be able to sell a chop saw without a guard, well no, but where are you going to draw the line. Where you draw the line defines the question.

How much right does the government have to decide what is right for you, and where will that lead in the future. That is the real question.

Motorcycles are proven more dangerous than cars and add way more to or insurance burden than do tablesaws for example, and there is a perfectly viable solution, so should we not in the interest of the greater good, outlaw motocycles? It is after all for your own good. And cars do the same thing, but with a lot more safety. How many people are walking around with football injuries? Kids scarred for life, before they have the wisdom of age to help them make the right decision. I for one will not stand for it, outlaw football, or make them play in inflatable suits perhaps.......

The possibilities are endless when you start to assume the role of savior.

[Art Mulder]

I can't say for 100%, but I believe that machines are ALREADY sold with base levels of safety features. CSA+UL approval if nothing else.

[Frank Drew]

I think manufacturers should be responsible for supplying a tool that's safe if used as intended by a person familiar and comfortable with that type of tool; for example, there should be no manufacturing defects that could cause unsafe vibrations, or that make it very difficult to use the tool in a safe manner (fence won't fasten securely, etc.). It's unfair, and unrealistic, for all machines to have every single, up-to-date safety feature that you might find on other machines.

As for older machines, a fellow buying a piece of equipment from me told me about a letter he got from T*******z, I think, that instructed him to destroy an old tablesaw of theirs he'd bought and inquired about; I guess it was their way of trying to shield themselves from a product liability lawsuit in case a user at some future date hurt his or herself on a decades-old machine, state-of-the-art when new, but obviously not carrying all the later safety add-ons.

(Johnny, I'm not sure if this was responsive to your question.)

[Chris Tsutsui]

Having just finished OSHA training week, safety is a very important factor that should never be overlooked by tool companies.

If they overlook even the slightest detail, lawsuits may eventually catch up to them.

[George Bregar]

Having just finished OSHA training week, safety is a very important factor that should never be overlooked by tool companies.

If they overlook even the slightest detail, lawsuits may eventually catch up to them. I would guess that the majority of woodworking machine accidents that result in serious injury end in lawsuits regardless of attention to detail, or even user fault. Paying settlements and/or legal fees are just part of "cost of good sold".

[Zack Teal]

i believe that that given that the tool manufactures put a few safety labels and manuals on there machine i don't believe that they should be responsible of what the actions of the users once they buy the tool unless it is a tool malfunction.

[Victor Robinson]

Should they be held responsible? Absolutely. There are very few people out there that would argue that you should just be allowed to make and sell whatever you want without safety being a major consideration.

For me it's not a question of responsibility, but how the extent of the punishment is decided once responsibility has been assigned and proven to be mishandled. We need tort reform very, very badly.

[hank dekeyser]

Manufacturers should be held responsible for the following :

provide a tool that performs as it is intended, provided it is used as it is intended to be used - and IF the tool in question has proper safety features incorporated into the tool design, and the safety features are properly maintained, and used. The second the tool is modified or safety features are by-passed, removed, or allowed to fall into an unsafe state of dis-repair by the end user, the manufacturer is off the hook IF the injury is due to the end users neglect to properly maintain the tool and all of its safety features.

Kind of like when we where kids and would take the chain guard off our bicycles - when your pant leg went through the chain and you got in trouble for wercking your new bluejeans - was it the bike manufacturers fault you did that ?

If the manufacturer has an appropriate safety device in place on the tool and I modify it, remove it, or let it fall into disrepair due to neglecting to perform the proper maintenance - Then it is MY fault the tool has caused me injury (caused by my own ignorance or stupidity)-

IF a safety device properly installed and maintained has failed causing injury, then YES the tool manufacturer should be liable.

If you slip and drill a hole in your hand, are you going to sue the drill manufacturer or the company that made the drill bit ?? Or maybe the electric company (they provided the power to run the tool)

[Peter Quinn]

I feel like my answer is yes, but I didn't vote for reasons similar to Larry's. I don't want dangerous POS tools being sold, but they already are IMO. I hope that either the market or darwinism will take care of these situations, though I have no real faith that they will. Company sells garbage tool, buyers wont go for it, company goes belly up. Or persons buys dubious tool due to ignorance or cheapness, person cuts off hand, person doesn't buy any more tools, company goes belly up. But the eight most frightening words in the english language, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help." Do I want the government designing my tools? Not hardly. The market is not perfect, sometimes corporations or manufacturers seem to need a nudge that individual consumers can't seem to give. Sometimes they have thick heads and bad ears. So what to do. Question in my mind is who should decide what a modern baseline safety design should be, and who should enforce it?

[Van Huskey]

I would guess that the majority of woodworking machine accidents that result in serious injury end in lawsuits regardless of attention to detail, or even user fault. Paying settlements and/or legal fees are just part of "cost of good sold".



1/10th of 1 percent is probably much closer to being accurate.

Certainly every manufacturer has to design and produce a product that is safe for its intended purpose or face the wraith of the justice system. The problem is safe is not an something that could be objectively valued. It like all things subjective is open to interpretation and thus human error, just as the design and manufacturer of the product is as well.

[Bruce Wrenn]

Remember that most power tool accidents are the result of a loose nut. The one that didn't read the manual and removed safety devices provided with the tool. We all can choose our actions, but we can't choose our consequences. Do something foolish, and be treated like a fool.

[Rod Sheridan]

Yes there are safety standards for wood working machinery, as there should be.

As you're aware riving knives were mandated (UL)for new saw designs as of 2008??? and are required to be included in all existing designs by 2014??

UL safety regulations also require anti-kickback pawls and a blade guard.

There are noise and dust emission standards also in the EU, as well as blade braking time specifications for some machine types. Shapers and saws come to mind. We are still far behind the EU in machinery safety.

In Ontario, commercial operations require formal pre-start inspections before any new machine can be operated, if the manufacturer doesn't provide a certificate of conformity.The pre-start inspectionwould cover required clearances, guarding and electrical approvals, as well as other machine specific requirements.

In addition the electrical components of machinery are required to be certified by a recognized agency such as ULC, CSA etc.

There's nothing new in having minimum safety standards, it's simply good practise.

Regards, Rod.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Kind of like when we where kids and would take the chain guard off our bicycles - when your pant leg went through the chain and you got in trouble for wercking your new bluejeans - was it the bike manufacturers fault you did that ?


Well, if the guard was poorly-attached, constantly rubbed the chain, prevented you from turning sharply, and made noise, wouldn't you remove it?

I don't think anyone could look at the stock blade guard on a table saw and feel that it is a quality design. These things are not intended to be used (with few exceptions)- the manufacturer practically designs them with the intent that the user will take it off and throw it away.

Give me a blade guard that is high-quality, well designed, and easy to use, and I WILL USE IT!

[Ray Newman]

"the manufacturer practically designs them with the intent that the user will take it off and throw it away."
--Dan F

Ithink that can said of just about any guard regardless of quality. I've seen far too many users operate machinery w/o any guards, even if a better guard is/was available. Yhe home owner/hobbyist will toss them out because the D-I-Y guys, magazines, etc., do not use them and many shops hang them on the wall until OSHA comes around.

[Rod Sheridan]

Give me a blade guard that is high-quality, well designed, and easy to use, and I WILL USE IT!

Curious minds want to know Dan, what type of guard are you using?

I agree that many stock guards aren't great, I ditched mine in favour of an Excalibur...........Regards, Rod.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I'm not using one, Rod. But I am working on building a SharkGuard. I do really like the guard on the PM2000, though - at least it appears that they spent considerable time designing and executing that one.