Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
659 F.3d 81 (2011)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Carlos Osorio (plaintiff) worked for a hardwood-floor installer. One day at work, Osorio was operating a Ryobi Model BTS15 benchtop table saw when his left hand slipped into the saw, causing severe injuries. Osorio filed a diversity action in federal district court against Ryobi Technologies, Inc., the manufacturer of the saw, and One World Technologies, Inc. (collectively Ryobi) (defendants), alleging that the saw’s design was defective and that Ryobi had breached the implied warranty of merchantability. At trial, Osorio presented the testimony of Dr. Stephen Gass, the inventor of a safety mechanism called SawStop that could sense when flesh came into contact with a saw’s blade and then immediately stop and retract the blade. Dr. Gass testified that he had presented his design to Ryobi, along with other table-saw manufacturers, five years before Osorio’s accident. None of the manufacturers adopted the technology. Dr. Gass testified that the cost of adding SawStop would have almost doubled the price of the saw and that the saw’s weight would have increased significantly. Ryobi contended the added weight would make the saw less portable, diminishing a major feature. Following trial, the jury found in favor of Osorio, awarding him $1.5 million in damages. Ryobi moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion. Ryobi appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Torruella, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.