Homeowner VS Pro Saws SAFTY QUESTION

[cord arrow]

partial to desert tortoise with my owl......................

 

[Gologit]

cord arrow....your timber industry is different than our timber industry and maybe it was an over generalization on my part to put all the blame on lawyers as a whole. But where do we start? Most lawyers I've come in contact with are whores,pure and simple. They'll go where the money is. If that hurts an individual or a small business or even an entire industry...thats of no consequence to them. The main people to have profited from all the spotted owl/marbelled murrelet/old growth/protested timber harvest plans/and just general obstructionist tactics in our timber industy have been the lawyers. Win or lose,they get their bucks. So...call bull$$it on me if you want and if it makes you feel better but I stand by what I say and I apologize to none.

 

[Gologit]

Ed,the best way to eat spotted owl is frequently. Cooking methods, side dishes,condiments...not important. Just eat more owl. Marbelled murrelet is good too.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The liberal weenies are winning, pretty soon no one will be responsible for any single act of their own. Any- and everything you do that might possibly result in any sort of self injury will not be your own fault, but will be cause for a lawsuit against the manufacturer of whatever the hail you might have had in your hand when you hurt yourself.

In other words, lawyers are responsible for the additional stickers. I'm amazed that this isn't obscenely obvious to everyone.

A large pro saw takes much more skill to run safely than a small homeowner saw. To an individual who has never run a saw, this may not be obvious. I think the stickers are a great way to let the beginner know about the hazards, and maybe, like the original poster, stop to think about running it.

Brian, contrary to what you think, warning stickers are not a liberal plot to get you.

 

[mdlmjohnson]

I'm new to this board and not familiar with how things are done here, but I was somewhat surprised (and dismayed) by both the content and tone of Boboak's response to my post:

1. I DEFEND products liability cases, so I'm really on Boboak's side on these issues. However, I also remember a time, before products liability law existed, when many manufacturers completely ignored the simplest and most basic safety precautions (such as putting the activating switches on punch presses on the handles, so that you couldn't accidentally activate a punch press with your hands under it). Perhaps they had no economic motivation to care. Moreover, granted that most accidents involve some culpable carelessness or lack of good sense by the operator, since when did mere carelessness or stupidity become a capital crime punishable by death or maiming?

2. The point of Boboak's response to my post, other than to express his hostility to anyone who he views as disagreeing with him, escapes me. "...the end justifies the means." What end? What means? The only "means" that I can think of that Boboak may be referring to is the existence of a civil justice system in which juries resolve disputes such as whether a manufacturer is or is not responsible for an injury incurred while using its machine. How else are such disputes going to be resolved? Or is the point that they shouldn't be resolved by juries? If not, by who else? It sounds to me like Boboak, as well as others who either agree or disagree with him about where the resonsibility lines should be drawn are exactly the people who should be involved in making such decisions, not some government bureaucrat. Most lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants would rather trust their clients claims to the common sense, and sense of justice, of ordinary citizens. I'm equally at a loss as to the "end" referred to.

3. Maybe Boboak's point is that lawyers are to blame for everything wrong with the world and there just shouldn't be any lawyers involved. Really? If this is what he means, I assume that Boboak will be true to his guns and will NOT seek the assistance of a lawyer even if he thinks that someone has wronged him and he has a claim. But what about if someone else sues you, Boboak? Of course, any claim against you would be frivolous and abusive, since you surely have never been careless or committed any other wrongful act. Would you really forego seeking a lawyer to help you in defending yourself? That would be unfortunate for you, because you would be far more likely to lose, even if you were right. And if it is OK for you to have a lawyer, isn't it obvious that the other side has the same right?

4. As to lawyers being "whores" that comment really doesn't deserve a response, but I can't resist. Does Boboak work for nothing? Does anyone else on this Board? Do doctors, engineers, chemists, teachers or arborists? (Or are ALL folks who work for a living and are paid for their work also "whores") Last week I hired an arborist to take down a couple of trees that were leaning and beyond my "weekend woodsman's" capability to handle safely. He and his workmen were very nice, but they didn't do it for nothing. And I wouldn't dream of calling them whores.

5. Finally, and most significantly, is it the usual practice on this Board to respond to a post that one disagrees with by mounting a personal attack on the poster? I hope not, because I joined this Board both to receive the benefit of others' knowledge and experience and to give something of my own back when I can (and to have some occasional fun doing it). If well-intentioned posts are met with personal attacks it's probably easier just to lurk when information is needed, without contributing anything.

Boboak, I'm going to assume that you just got a bit carried away and expressed your understandably strong feelings a bit immoderately. No apology is needed and no offense taken.

 

[Gologit]

mdlmjohnson....looks like I hit a nerve. I meant nothing personal with the use of the word whore. I don't know you and wouldn't call you such a name without basis in fact. However,many of the people in your profession are just exactly that. All of us,in one form or another,work for wages. Most of us,however,wouldn't sell out to the highest bidder and do the work of someone we strongly disliked or disagreed with. I work for a large timber company and I work there because I want to and because I strongly believe that the way they do things concerning our forests is good. If I went to work for the Sierra Club or Earth First and took their money,while strongly against everything they stood for, I'd be a whore. We need lawyers and I'd hire one in a heartbeat if I needed that kind of help. But...if I cut my leg off with my saw I doubt that I'd sue the guy that sold me the saw, or the manufacturer,if my injury was due to my carelessness. I pick up a saw knowing full well the risks involved. If the saw was faulty that would be a different story. I've seen too many instances of frivolous litigation and I can't help but believe that lawyers encourage it...thats whoring. When I see more lawyers refusing cases that are bogus and maybe doing pro-bono work when its called for I'll reconsider my attitude. By the way...you can come to this forum and take advantage of our collective experience and expertise but is there a forum that loggers can go to and gather the same from lawyers?

 

[046]

mad dog, welcome to the board. your expertise is needed and welcome. here we have someone that apears to be highly skilled, offering to contribute his time for free. why would we want to run him off?

recently there has been a degradation of posts in general. with attitudes towards posts that slam instead of being constructive.

It's always been my attitude that when you take from a forum, it's your obligation to give back. recently it's been a pi**ing match between folks. makes for good entertainment, but what are you learning?

well I'm not a pro-saw builder, but I've done my fair share of wrenching. there are bits I could contribute and help, but anymore I refrain due to the sh*t a** responses, knowing I'm probably going to be slammed for my small contribution.

and yes pro-saws like stihl 046 or husky 372 class or larger requires more skill to operate. what's wrong with warning labels for those folks that don't know any better? that $.25 cent warning sticker for a mfg is cheap insurance against claims of non-notification of dangers.

 

[mdlmjohnson]

I appreciate your replies, both Boboak and 046. I understand that sometimes it seems that lawyers will just take any side of a case whether they believe in it or not, even if it is frivolous. Part of the problem is that it is not the lawyer's function to decide the merits of the case; that is up to the judge and jury. If all lawyers could refuse to take someone's case just because they personally would not decide it in that person's favor then someone with a difficult case might not be able to get representation at all. I, personally, do not take cases that I am convinced are meritless; I tell those people that they would be better off with a lawyer who sees the case as they do. However, I have taken many cases that were unpopular, and also cases for people (and corporations) whom I thought were not nice, but who nonetheless had valid claims or defenses. Doctors don't refuse treatment just because the patient isn't nice and I think the principle is the same.

As far as "legal advice boards" I admit I don't know of any. Advice, after all, is a lawyer's stock in trade. But there ARE plenty of legal services offices where people who can't afford a lawyer can go for free advice and representation. I, and most other lawyers whom I know, contribute both time and money to those organizations. I personally spend hundreds of hours a year working for organizations that provide free legal services and I also teach, without being paid for it, courses that train younger lawyers to provide good quality free legal assistance.

In addition, both I and other lawyers who are members of this and other chatboards, frequently try (without rendering formal legal services) to be helpful about legal matters that come up in threads. We don't send a bill for doing so, either.

Are there lawyers who are "whores"? Sure, just like every other profession.

Hopefully, we have now cleared the air. I look forward to continuing to be a member of this group and I promise you that I will be very happy to be helpful to the other folks here whenever I have some knowledge or experience (either with respect to forestry, or anything else, including law) that I think could be helpful. One example might be my very first post in this forum yesterday. It is in a thread about the fellow who got killed in a chipper accident over on the safety and accidents board.

 

[turnkey4099]

Sorta back to the topic. I have bought three new saws (Homey 360, Poulan 4000, Stihl ms310). The first two came with a useable operators manual. The stihl has a manual that could just as well reside in the trash. There are 3 pages of "don't do this" to every page of 'how to'. Barely has the information on how to start it and for sure has nothing on interior parts.

The 310 being almost 15 years newer than the last saw might have something to do with it. Are all manuals now that way or do the pro series have real manuals?

Harry K

 

[begleytree]

The stihl has a manual that could just as well reside in the trash. There are 3 pages of "don't do this" to every page of 'how to'. Barely has the information on how to start it and for sure has nothing on interior parts.
Harry K

Funny. I felt the same way about the 2 new manuals I received with my new 372xp. It came with 2 books, 1 is 8 1/2 x11 with 40 pages, and the other is 8x12 with 38 pages. neither book alone or combined said two pages worth about saw features, but they're a printed loggers course, for sure. With 2 large manuals, I was looking foreward to some good info about the husky (my first). sadly disapointed.
My 372 has no warning stickers plastered all over it, only one sticker on top warning of kickback.
-Ralph

 

[geofore]

warnings

Here is a question of safety for everyone. I have a new 575 and it is covered with warnings how it is capable of kickback. It has far more warning than my 359. Is a 74cc saw that much more dangerous than a 59cc saw? I think that even a 30cc can be dangerous. It seems to me that a saw in the range of 30 to 60cc’s are thought of as safe and all others seem to be dangerous.

The number one thing to remember is this kind of work/these tools are not very forgiving if used improperly. When used/done properly they can still injure/kill you in the blink of and eye. The warnings are the way to go to inform users new/old but after the years I've used saws they are still dangerous but that doesn't stop me from using the saws. The act of using commom sense does not come with the purchase of the saws, so you need warnings and manuals. Pros have learned to use common sense, the school of hard knocks can be attended even after a college education.

 

[Gologit]

mdlmjohnson...you made some good points. I noticed that you never bashed loggers as a class while I bashed lawyers one and all. Not very fair of me, I guess. I get madder than hell when somebody who really doesn't know all that much about my occupation runs it into the ground so maybe I should extend the same courtesy to others. Welcome to the forum...the large grating sound you hear is me trying to pry my foot out of my mouth.

 

[begleytree]

Ralph, what do you recommend for a side dish with that?

I was thinking eagle eggs, and timber rattler.
-Ralph

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

mdlmjohnson,
Do you think the guys that modify chainsaws, for visitors to this site, expose themselves to a large degree of liability?
Imagine a homeowner type taking his newly modified 372 out and getting hit by a kick-back to the throat. You think his family would have a case?

 

[skwerl]

mdlmjohnson,
Do you think the guys that modify chainsaws, for visitors to this site, expose themselves to a large degree of liability?
Imagine a homeowner type taking his newly modified 372 out and getting hit by a kick-back to the throat. You think his family would have a case?

Of course, Mike. But how many homeowners with little to no chainsaw experience are going to want to spend the money required in order to get a pro, modified saw? If they don't know enough about operating a saw, then they are also not going to know the difference between an MS440 and an MS290 except a few hundred bucks.

Just how many saw operators got hit in the throat with a chainsaw chain last year?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Just how many saw operators got hit in the throat with a chainsaw chain last year?

I don't know, but if if you asked how many were killed or seriously injured, I still wouldn't know, other than to say it was a lot.

Of the hundreds of members here, how many are proffesional saw users, less than a dozen?

 

[rjh245]

I have a saw that is a pro saw and i have not had any formal training. How many people out there are using pro saw without training? Is there even training avalible? I have been using saws since i was 14 and i never thought anything about training until reading this site.

 

[mdlmjohnson]

Boboak: Thanks for your very graceful reply, which I really appreciate. Like I said before, no offense taken. We may not always agree, but exchanging points of view as well as information, is what chat boards are all about.

BTW, I like loggers, both as a class and individually. I have been using chainsaws for over 25 years and recently added a Husky 357XP to the Homelite that I have had for a long time. I like working in the woods myself and learning new skills. (recently took up welding)

Indeed, I like most folks and that is why I trust them on juries. Generally, people collectively have a lot of common sense as well as a pretty good sense of what is fair. ...of course, sometimes groups, both large and small, make mistakes but w**t the H**l, so do I.

To respond to MikeMass; We've been having a long and interesting discussion for some months on the tractors forum (www.tractorbynet.com) on a similar topic; the risks for tractor owners modifying their ROPS (rollover protection systems).

Given a chainsaw's capacity for doing serious damage, I think that anyone who modifies a chainsaw for someone else would probably be liable to anyone injured if a court determined that the injury was the result of a defect in the modification. Whether it was or wasn't might be the subject of conflicting evidence (opinion or otherwise) and defending such a case might be very expensive, as well as risky, for the person who made the modification.

That is not to say that no one should modify a chainsaw for anyone else. Knowing the person that you are doing it for, and having confidence that the owner understands how to use the saw as modified and that the modification does not add unreasonably or in some hidden way to the saw's dangers, would certainly help. On the other hand, it would be VERY risky to modify a chainsaw for a novice who doesn't understand the dangers or how to use it as safely as possible.

Another protection for one who modifies a chainsaw would be to require the owner to acknowledge (1) that the modification is being made at his request, (2) that he is qualified to use the saw as modified, (3) that he will not permit anyone to use it who is not so qualified, and (4) that he is releasing the person doing the modification from any liability arising in connection with the modification. Even such a release would not necessarily be 100% conclusive, but it would certainly put the person who performed the modification in a stronger position in defending any claim later on.

Hope this helps.

 

[tek9tim]

I have a saw that is a pro saw and i have not had any formal training. How many people out there are using pro saw without training? Is there even training avalible? I have been using saws since i was 14 and i never thought anything about training until reading this site.

Yeah, I started running saws when I was 12, and didn't get any training until I was 18 and ran away and joined the Forest Circus. I learned a few things I'd never thought about, or been told hanging around loggers. They have a fairly decent program that they use to train new sawyers for fireline work. Of course, it is only as good as the instructor putting it on.

It is pretty apparent how few people have had formalized training on dealing with kickback. Seems like in 75% of the pictures I see of people running a saw, they don't have their thumb wrapped around the front handle.

Somebody said it already, but saws under 3.8 CI are supposed to only be fitted with low kickback bars and chain. That's where they dodge the bullet. If you take the safety chain off and run full-chisel, you are going against the manufacturer's suggestions and taking responsibility for your own actions, whether you want to or not. The Stihls even have a different warning label on the brake handle, with the smaller saws being all green, and the bigger saws having a green and yellow sticker. You know, I bought a 660 used from canada, and the label on the brake has a couple of pictures of kickback, but no long disclaimer. Perhaps Canada is more lax. Or there wasn't enough room to put it in both English AND French

 

[WRW]

tek9tim,

Unless it has changed, the standard for less than 3.8 ci is two devices to reduce kickback. Chainbrake and reduced kickback bar meets that standard. The low kickback chain is a good idea also for the novice or occasional user.