Jurisdiction: Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham, MA
This matter involved a table saw which the plaintiff alleged was defective. The table saw had its blade-guard removed while stored in the garage of our client, who regularly used it. Our client permitted his neighbor, the plaintiff, to use the saw. The plaintiff was an experienced user of saws in that he had worked as a meat cutter his entire professional life. He regularly used band saws. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was approximately 58 years old and planned to continue to work for another ten years.
The table saw did not contain a guard. Our client indicated that he had purchased the saw used, without a blade-guard, and could not remember from where.
While using our saw the plaintiff totally amputated one finger and partially amputated two fingers. The plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 given future lost wage loss and pain and suffering and disfigurement. Through the course of the litigation we were able to show that the plaintiff was very knowledgeable about saws. The plaintiff’s saw expert was successfully attacked on his experience as an expert in many areas, and inconsistencies with past testimony. His credibility was greatly harmed, and it hurt the plaintiff’s case. We were also able to make substantial points against the plaintiff’s expert on the theory that the very saw he was criticizing in another case was the saw he was holding out as an exemplary saw in this case.
In short, after approximately a half day of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. In large part it seems that the verdict was based on the fact that the plaintiff had knowledge of saws and understood that he was using a saw without a guard and certainly had the wherewithal to check on whether a guard was present and whether one should be added.
