Insecure to theft

Forum Sponsor
crankcall said:
In the US tablesaw manufactures are also sueing EACH OTHER for theft of intellectual property and patent infractions of the systems that would prevent the saws from cutting off body parts. Its not like here. But here will soon be like there.
Click to expand...

Most of that is the saw stop guy who is still butt hurt that he was unable to force every manufacturer to incorporate his device on every saw sold.
 
nobbie48 said:
Bosch has a similar system.
Click to expand...

Thats sort of the whole premise of the suit, Bosch says it 'different', Saw Stop says its the same and Bosch stole it. The other manufacturers are twiddling thumbs waiting to see who wins. Its a billion dollar idea if they force the manufacturers to adopt the tech. Saw Stop is ten yrs old so the timing on patents is interesting.
Cheap benchtop table saws all jumped $50-$70 last year when they all had to be fitted with splitters and kick back dogs to be sold. First thing everybody throws away on a bench saw is the splitter and dogs.
If I had a business where any body but me had a saw to use, it would have a saw stop.
 
Going back to the 14 and 15 year old kids, can a minor be held financially responsible? At what age can one get a credit card without a cosigner etc?
 
Its a very complicated process but I understand thier legal guardians/parents can be sued, it would then fall to whatever insurance the parents had or a sale of assets to pay costs. As the saying goes, you cant get blood from a stone so if there is nothing to get.... and it would take years.
 
Riceburner said:
Yes and no. If the garage is known to leave keys in the cars, they are inviting theft. Kinda like leaving the firearm cabinet unlocked. The % they are responsible for seems way too high though.
Click to expand...


I'm fine with them being held responsible for the theft. I'm not fine with them being held responsible for the dumb, drunk, and stoned kids that hurt themselves trying to learn to drive on it. If they're minors then if anyone should be responsible I'd say their parents should be supervising them better. But in reality I think it's their own damn faults and they should simply be charged with theft and can deal with their own injuries for being idiots.
 
I'm thinking that putting some of the responsibility on the shop is just a way to try and get the kids some insurance money. Without a payout from the shop's insurance company, the kid will most likely get nothing to help with care. But, it also means there will be a heck of a fight put up from the insurance company and possible others that don't want a precedent set. IMO.. this is very far from over.

I highly doubt the parent's insurance company, if they had it, will have to payout. The Mother supplying beer will certainly void any policy she may have had. The insurance companys will certainly try and put the responsibility on the parents for not properly supervising their kids. There's another recent thread on the topic of parents responsibility for their kids... Griff2 posted up some case examples regarding the topic.
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?198995-Liability-question&p=2445940#post2445940
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if:

Garage ends up paying for a disability home where injured kid and his bootlegger mom get to live (plus a H/C van)
Drunk driver buddy is a minor so can't be forced to pay
Mom has no assets so blood from a stone analogy

A lawyer in Texas some years ago told me that down there the court makes sure the victim gets his money. If one or more of the accused can't come up with their share the ones with money have to cover them. How they sort it out later is a totally separate court case. If that were to hold true here the garage could end up with the whole tab.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom