Chipped edges on new planes and do new planes need sharpening before use?

[MikeG.]

I don't know whether we're edging a bit close to the "no religion" rule here fellas. Best to leave gods out of a thread on plane blades, don't you think?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I don't know whether we're edging a bit close to the "no religion" rule here fellas. Best to leave gods out of a thread on plane blades, don't you think?

Oh, I dunno. After all, his lad was a chippie .....

 

[Droogs]

I was gonna mention Thor but remembered he only has a

 

[TheTiddles]

I was gonna mention Thor but remembered he only has a

Every problem looks like a nail to him I guess?

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I don't know whether we're edging a bit close to the "no religion" rule here fellas. Best to leave gods out of a thread on plane blades, don't you think?

I capitalized God, and was posted with reverence, referring to my birth name instead of a screen name.

 

[Inoffthered]

The 'sharp at purchase idea seems good...but its possibly caution that prevents it. I have to sharpen all tools after purchase however as an OHSE 'type' I think that not having blades sharpened to 'really good edge' at the store may actually prevent some injuries when people thumb test the blade edge. This would be a cause of action against the maker/importer. That may sound 'come off it'....but precaution whether as a principle or a personal decision has a value. The origin of the actions are in Donaghue Vs Stevenson, and though later altered owing to his quoting the 'Bible' for it... Lord Atkin on 'neighbourliness' is an important mindset.

I say that possibility of not sharpening to fine edge understanding also that probably many people have no ability at sharpening or knowing when 'sharp' has become SHARP without the thumb test. Nevertheless used tools blunt and sharpening is important. Interestingly some serious injuries comefromblunt tools...like a screwdriver which when 'blunt' is actually sharp.

Those razor sharp knives flogged in TV advertisements... ...I wonder how many injuries from them...My son knocked the large one off a bench...it embedded in his foot and required 5 stitches...yep, he had sneakers 'on' and a steel cap would not have protected him on the bridge of his foot. Makes me shudder just thinking about it!

It would be interesting to get the view of a lawyer but quoting Donaghue v Stevenson to support your argument is, imho, totally fallacious and a misguided application and extrapolation of the principles in that case.
In Donaghue v Stevenson the purchaser of a bottle of ginger beer fell ill because the bottle contained a dead snail. Clearly, someone buying a bottle of pop is entitled to expect that is would not include foreign bodies that could cause illness. Using this judgement justify not sharpening tools is without foundation. Would you apply your logic to the suppliers of motor vehicles on the basis that cars can kill? Anyone buying a bladed tool would be hard pressed to sue the supplier for any injury if the item was correctly packed and identified as sharp.

 

[profchris]

It would be interesting to get the view of a lawyer but quoting Donaghue v Stevenson to support your argument is, imho, totally fallacious and a misguided application and extrapolation of the principles in that case.
In Donaghue v Stevenson the purchaser of a bottle of ginger beer fell ill because the bottle contained a dead snail. Clearly, someone buying a bottle of pop is entitled to expect that is would not include foreign bodies that could cause illness. Using this judgement justify not sharpening tools is without foundation. Would you apply your logic to the suppliers of motor vehicles on the basis that cars can kill? Anyone buying a bladed tool would be hard pressed to sue the supplier for any injury if the item was correctly packed and identified as sharp.

The view of this lawyer is that the court would throw out such a claim. Judges are, amazingly, quite shrewd people.

There's some very good academic research which shows that people aren't guided by the law, but rather by what they think the law says (which is usually wrong, even habitual criminals don't get it!).

For product liability claims like this, the source of misunderstanding seems to be a tiny handful of US cases, where the claim is decided by a jury and the jury seems to think "Yes, I'd like $1 million if this happened to me". Obviously, the UK press only reports the jury decision and not that on appeal the case was later thrown out or damages reduced to $100.

Besides that, if the argument were sound then plane blades would have to be too blunt to cut at all. When I started out, knowing no better I bought an Amtech plane. It's never actually planed wood, but the supplied blade would still have cut me (just very slowly ).

 

[Droogs]

Tool manufacturers in the 70's must have been petrified about cases like this judging by the pap they sold

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but in the States, we live in a very litigious society. Half of TV commercials are attorneys "fishing" for clients for class action lawsuits, with their spiel beginning "...you deserve..." (other half of commercials are drug companies".

As a manufacturer, nothing strikes fear in my heart as much as a letter from an attorney (or absolutely anything from the government).

But, seeing these tools are meant for cutting, wouldn't the act of buying one acknowledge the buyer to understand the inherent danger of a potentially sharp edge?

 

[AndyT]

In the UK there's a problem with knives being used as weapons. Various laws have been introduced in vain attempts to legislate the problem away - when every kitchen in the land has at least one knife which could cause a serious wound or worse.

Here's one UK retailer trying to avoid injury or prosecution by selling their cutting tool with only an unfinished blunt edge on it. It's a device for cutting debris off a boat propellor. Their website description says:

Please be aware that as a precaution and health and safety to third parties when delivering this item, the cutting blade is not to a “razor finish”, when you receive it, however if you require a better cutting edge this can be done with a small file.

https://www.miracleleisureproducts.co.uk/prop-mate-p717.html

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - President Reagan Aug. 12, 1986

 

[MikeK]

But, seeing these tools are meant for cutting, wouldn't the act of buying one acknowledge the buyer to understand the inherent danger of a potentially sharp edge?

Probably no more than buying a cup of coffee at the drive-through would alert the driver that the contents might be hot.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Wasn't it an airline or a McD that got sued when a customer scalded herself with spilt coffee?

 

[TheTiddles]

Really going off-topic... whilst there are corner-cases that the Daily Mail like to make hay on, many litigations drive a culture of valuing human life and insisting that others do too. We have more work to do and comparisons with the USA in terms of injury rates and deaths do not make one side look very good at all, but whilst we have much in common, the amount that we don’t is much larger than many realise till they immerse themselves in both and compare

Aidan

 

[MikeK]

Wasn't it an airline or a McD that got sued when a customer scalded herself with spilt coffee?

I was being subtle, but it was an elderly woman who scalded herself after buying a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-through. She was a passenger in the car and held the coffee between her knees while she took off the lid to add creamer and sugar. Unfortunately, she dumped the entire cup in her lap and suffered burns that required hospitalization. Her attorneys claimed the coffee was defective because it was too hot. McDonalds eventually settled the claim out of court, but subsequent claims for copycat litigants are usually dismissed.

 

[pe2dave]

"If you have no blade camber on your smoothing plane how do you avoid having to sand off the plane tracks left by the corners of a straight edge?"

Add another step to sharpening. Roll the blade at each corner to round it whilst sharpening. No plane tracks.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

Wasn't it an airline or a McD that got sued when a customer scalded herself with spilt coffee?

Mickey D's! And the customer prevailed!

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I was being subtle, but it was an elderly woman who scalded herself after buying a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-through. She was a passenger in the car and held the coffee between her knees while she took off the lid to add creamer and sugar. Unfortunately, she dumped the entire cup in her lap and suffered burns that required hospitalization. Her attorneys claimed the coffee was defective because it was too hot. McDonalds eventually settled the claim out of court, but subsequent claims for copycat litigants are usually dismissed.

...and McDonalds lowered the temperature of their coffee.

 

[AJB Temple]

Mickey D's! And the customer prevailed!

Yes, typical frivolous US law suit after a woman at a drive through clamped a cup of coffee between her knees, then pulled the lid off towards her, tipping coffee into her lap. She was wearing absorbent trousers which made matters worse. Liebeck case.

However, in England a similar case against McD's (Bogle) failed in 2002. The sensible English judge thought that it was perfectly OK for a company selling hot coffee to serve it hot and the customer should expect that. We are a tea drinking nation and used to applying a bit of common sense to hot drinks.

 

[spb]

Yes, typical frivolous US law suit after a woman at a drive through clamped a cup of coffee between her knees, then pulled the lid off towards her, tipping coffee into her lap. She was wearing absorbent trousers which made matters worse. Liebeck case.

There's a lot missing from how this case is usually reported - for a start, that her initial request was only the actual costs (medical bills and loss of income) she incurred as a result, and the headline award of millions was after McDonald's refused repeated opportunities to settle. The jury apparently felt that the company's attitude warranted the large punitive damages amount, though the judge then cut the payout by more than 80%. Second, that McDonald's had known for a long time (>10 years) that their coffee was served hot enough to injure (as evidenced by multiple previous claims which had been settled out of court), was too hot to drink as a result, and that consumers weren't generally aware of the severity of burns that it could cause, and that it made no effort to make them aware. Then, at the trial, they made statements to the effect that despite being well aware of multiple injuries being caused that could have been easily prevented, they deemed the numbers insignificant. The jury award was less "I'd like a few million dollars" and more that the company's complete disregard for its customers' well being shouldn't be allowed to continue.

However, in England a similar case against McD's (Bogle) failed in 2002. The sensible English judge thought that it was perfectly OK for a company selling hot coffee to serve it hot and the customer should expect that. We are a tea drinking nation and used to applying a bit of common sense to hot drinks.

In England we also don't risk bankruptcy through medical bills from any slight injury. Many of these cases (including the infamous coffee one) start from the plaintiff not wanting to pay out tens or hundreds of thousands for something that happened because of another party's actions or inaction.

Of course, there are plenty of utterly frivolous lawsuits filed all the time in both countries, but they're not all as clear-cut as they look. Remember also that large American corporations hold a lot of influence over mass media and public discourse, and an obvious interest in reforming tort law so that they're never held liable for anything they do.