Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 61 to 75 of 151
Thread: Liability for small shops?
-
17th April 2014, 09:21 AM #61but my contacts are good,,,,, I still know where most of it is.
Where you got the idea I have made thousands of chairs I have absolutely no idea.
Population gives substance to stats. When you said you hadn't had one glue line failure. Theres incredible reasons to be impressed, IMO, if that was true after making thousands of chairs.
I dont hate you at all. Hate is a very strong word.
I agree there are a lot of old Windsors around and still quite serviceable. But they are a common candidate for repair.
I understand that they are not made from cedar. Its no good for steaming.
The chair of mine that failed wasnt just a cracked glue line. It was complete glue failure due to a faulty batch.
I never mix specie in any furniture. So the idea of hardwood back legs isnt an option.
Dont forget, I do use other timbers, not just cedar. I have made many hardwood chairs. I have two sitting beside me in my office as we speak. I have made the exact same design in cedar for a client who I see regularly.
Sabre legged ladder backs with drop in upholstered seats. Both continue to give good service. The cedar ones show less sign of timber movement at the joints.
Felling shake tends to occur more frequently in the softer timbers. Particularly those with less elasticity. As John G pointed out in his post. That is not to say it wont happen in others. It will. Ive seen it in spotted gum and it doesn't get much springier than that. Sugar maple would be one of the worst. As I said earlier, clear sap species
are the hardest to detect.
I take your point about your method of construction showing up hair line faults. When we do find a partial shake it would be nice to put the theory to the test.
Mate, I dont think I have said that the partial blind felling shake was a common fault. I did say, in relation to the chair that took out my uncle, it APPEARED to be a shake.
Any given piece of timber can have a fault of some description. Maybe obvious , maybe not. The use of the former is bad craftsman ship. The later is what you have insurance for.
If you feel that I am not being honest, go discuss the matter with someone you feel you can trust.
-
17th April 2014 09:21 AM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Age
- 2010
- Posts
- Many
-
17th April 2014, 10:57 AM #62Deceased
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- ...
- Posts
- 7,955
Get back on topic please.
All this waffle about chair making and possible chair faults really have nothing to do with this topic about liability insurance for small shops.
Although this might be rivetting information for some members IMO it has nothing to do with the subject on hand and is a blatant hijack.
Why don't you start your own thread and leave us to read about the topic that was started.
Peter.
-
17th April 2014, 12:23 PM #63
Good Morning Peter
Totally agree with your sentiments, and Evanisms.
The repetitive diatribe about cedar chairs is just that - waffle and rant. Cedar was a preferred timber for chair making during the colonial era and thousands of such chairs are still in constant use - often with sabre rear legs, turned or sabre front legs, removable or fixed upholstered seats or woven cane seats. Ours were made in the 1840 -50's so are probably over 150 years old, possibly 175. That seems like reasonable longevity and they are certainly not fragile.
Well designed, well made products built by competent craftsmen who know their materials and engineering will stand the test of time - even cedar.
The reverse is also true. And to protect the consumer the common law of torts evolved, as did insurance, as did more recent legislated product liability law and ambulance chasing lawyers. Sad but true - it places those who are not quite amateur and not quite professional in a rather invideous position.
Fair Winds
Graeme
-
17th April 2014, 07:33 PM #64Retired
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Kiewa
- Age
- 64
- Posts
- 1,636
Well, Peter, all this waffle goes to the heart of the matter - what area of woodworking represents the most risk for the hobby woodworker?
I can think of no greater area of risk than making decent chairs. Or do you think I am wrong on that? I build lots of things but not chairs for the above reasons.
I can make tables of all kinds that will withstand almost all kinds of abuse. Not so with chairs. The few hundred $ spent on liability insurance is well spent if you are making chairs IMO. I suggest you make a set of six and guarantee your work.
Today I made a set of 12mm MDF boxes that I refused to guarantee would stand potential brides standing on. Point blank, no liability accepted. And no, I have no insurance but I am careful.
-
17th April 2014, 08:35 PM #65GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- bilpin
- Posts
- 3,559
Thats a bit narrow minded old mate. But I had signed off on it in my last post.
I do draw to your attention that the initial post by Evanism was specifically regarding tables and chairs and insuring against liability in the case of malfunction.
I also note that your above comments are your only contribution to the thread. So thanks for the input.
-
18th April 2014, 08:21 AM #66GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- the sawdust factory, FNQ
- Posts
- 1,051
Now here is the great problem in all of this:
A lot of people confuse warranty with liability.
Warranty is your guarantee to refund or replace in the event of a failure. You can choose to/choose not to warrant your products.
Liability is your responsibility in the event your product fails to meet its intended useage, or of a breach in your duty of care. It exists whether you choose it or not, whether the product has a warranty or not.
Saying I don't warrant this product for that useage does not in fact reduce your liability, ad your "duty of care" does not go away. If you thought the product was unsuitable for the intended use you shouldn't have sold it.
Liability exists whether you like it or not, choose it or not, get paid for your products or services or not, and saying there's no liability attached doesn't make it so. Nor, for that matter, does having someone sign a disclaimer that discharges your liability.
-
18th April 2014, 08:57 AM #67Jim
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Victoria
- Posts
- 3,191
I've followed this thread with interest and fully understand the emphasis on chairs. They probably are the one item of furniture that have excessive loads put on them in 'normal' use. I'm not thinking of obese static loads but rather the pulling in and out from tables and the tendency of so many people to lean heavily on the backs (even raising the front feet from the floor). No amount of workmanship can allow for allow for this in the long-term. It's a fascinating can of worms that has provided work for restorers over the centuries. It would be a shame if the same thing applied to lawyers.
Cheers,
Jim
-
18th April 2014, 09:51 AM #68Retired
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Kiewa
- Age
- 64
- Posts
- 1,636
-
18th April 2014, 09:52 AM #69Retired
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Location
- Canberra
- Posts
- 1,820
The chairs are for kids, so I'm engineering them like mining equipment. Huge tennons, glue and screws. Massive splats with huge glue faces right up and down. Those things will outlast Rome.
You raise a good point. People do not take their own inteterests to heart any more. Liability, Insurance and lottery payouts has made people reckless with their own safety.
I reluctantly fixed 6 dining chairs that were in dire need of repair. Every one of them had major faults and could have caused an accident. Not to mention the manufacturing was very ordinary. Glue missing, pushed together only parts, screws not put in properly, glue failures on every one. The owner quite literally used them to near death and didn't consider for a second the risk they took.
It was someone else's problem.
No wonder so many cars on the road are pieces of $hit and require enforced annual inspections.
-
18th April 2014, 10:49 AM #70GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- bilpin
- Posts
- 3,559
Evan, After forty years in the trade, I have come to the conclusion you cannot rely on your construction methods to always get you out of trouble.
There are not many of us professional chair makers left. Stories are shared, though tricks of the trade and design ideas are usually closely guarded secrets. To overcome total silence when ever we meet a good safe subject is liability. As stated several times by others in this thread chairs have their own inherent risks. Chairmakers know that.
It is admirable that you intend building these chairs to outlive Rome. But in so doing you also expose yourself to
further liability risk ie weight, flammability, glue toxicity and who knows what else.
A fellow I new who had a very successful business making kids furniture for preschools found himself embroiled in litigation after a store room fire ignited some of his brand new chairs in a preschool store room. The fire was not large and was quickly put under control by the staff. The school day continued uneventfully. Some of the kids took a bit sick. The chairs were finished in clear Poly. When Poly burns, it puts off a blue flame.. Cyanide.
Whoever would have thought?
Please dont think I am trying to discourage you from making furniture. Quite the contrary. I am just pointing out what I see is the importance of insurance cover.
-
18th April 2014, 11:17 AM #71Deceased
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- ...
- Posts
- 7,955
The reason that I haven't contributed earlier is that the points I would make had already been eloquently put by others and I don't normally feel the need to repeat the same thing said by others.
But to satisfy you my view is that all chairs will fail at some stage and the only question is when and what the consequence of such failure would be. It could be early or late in the life of the chair and the consequence could be minor or major. My post was not against a detailed discussion of the various possible types of failures, etc, but that such aspect should have been in a separate thread.
Thus the prudent maker will insure against such liability and incorporate his business to limit all his liabilities whilst enhancing his taxable position. The foolish person does not. I for one would not like to face financial ruin because of the foolishness of not insuring my work.
We all may deplore the more prevalent attitude of consumers standing up for their rights and the availability of "ambulance chasing" lawyers who make it financially easy to sue on a "no win no fee" basis but it is the way society is moving. Product liability is now very well known and enforced by the government and consumers a like.
It is even illegal to attempt to avoid it your responsibility by placing special conditions on what we make, notwithstanding you may not even charge for it.
Peter.
-
18th April 2014, 12:04 PM #72GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- bilpin
- Posts
- 3,559
-
18th April 2014, 12:28 PM #73GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- the sawdust factory, FNQ
- Posts
- 1,051
Yah, I agree. The duty of care standard will be less for free work, but it's still there. I kinda sorta half remember a story about a bloke who made something or other (guts telling me chair, but I really can't remember) and gave it away and it failed under some absurd situation... big fat guy swinging on it or similar... and he got sued. Can't remember the result but regardless of win, lose, or draw statistics if you got to go to court and pay a lawyer it's a no win situation for the wallet.
My wife is this jetsetting international financial consultant - her thing is that regardless of whether you want the liability or not from (investment - her field) decisions they exist, and that the best way to reduce your liability is not to say there's none.... but rather to stipulate exactly what your liabilities are.
In the case of the chair that would be a SWL, and probably a "no step", "not a swing" etc list of disclaimers... Saying you have no liability for your product failing is a sure fire way to get your ass sued off, and you probably haven't got much of a leg to stand on in court. Saying I have liability, but only under these circumstances, means you're covered if you can demonstrate that the situation that caused the problem was not in the intended use parameters. Remembering that in civil court where these things are normally settled the burden of proof is a lot less... reasonable doubt, all you have to do is create reasonable doubt that the product... in this case a chair... had been subjected to stresses it wasn't designed for at some point by person or persons unknown. IE... that the dude that was sitting on your chair didn''t necessarily break it but that the chair had been stressed by some prior person using it for a stepladder or swing at some other point in time. That's a lot easier to do then show that your (now broken) chair was perfectly made and failed by act of god.
Of course, if you put a SWL on your chair then you'd have to be prepared to go to court for discriminating against bigger people... like the airline trying to charge extra for people who can't sit in their standard sized seat and inconveniencing other passengers because of it. *eyeroll*
I hate this stuff. I hate the system that perpetuates it too. It's wrong that a little guy can't get ahead without 32 different governmental approvals, permits, certifications and insurance anymore. It's wrong that if you build something to give to someone and that person is injured as a result of your gift failing that you might just get sued (after all the person accepted the gift). It's wrong that one can no longer start from scratch and through hard work, guts, and determination make something of themselves without having to overcome so many nonsensical hurdles in this country. Mighta been the lucky country once... might have been the land of opportunity... but now it's nearly at the "to get up you got to get out stage". And most don't even recognise that because of a lack of expose to places where there is opportunity for the little guy to get ahead without all the in the way.
But right or wrong it is what it is. Sadly, I think one would be mad to go into any sort of business without liability insurance anymore.
-
18th April 2014, 05:04 PM #74
So, whats the argument ? ….that the maker should have used another type of finish ? ….Is the fact that it was in a school (kids) thats helping push it ?…because polys used everywhere. Uno same argument could be used when adults are exposed to cyanide when poly burns.
Makes one feel like giving up. Instead encourage the public just to sit on the floor, and make cushions instead. Give the cedar forests a chance to regrow to how they once were.
I was thinking about the cedar blind shake problem today. If you can't mix timbers and must stick to cedar for traditional,construction and aesthetic reasons, and its not possible to identify blind shake at construction by scrutinization, maybe something more technical. Would and ultraviolet light pick it up ? …. noticed some guys using it to pick up glue mess before finishing. Crime scene investigators use it for forensics I've heard.
-
18th April 2014, 05:50 PM #75
Wow, this has become quite a can of worms. I don't think you need to consider the technical aspects such as probability of an accident happening etc.
To my mind, if insurance is only going to cost about $400 to $600 a year, (~$10/week or $1.40 a day), I reckon it's well worth it even if only for your own peace of mind. It costs more for a cup of coffee these days.... Steve
-- Monkey see, monkey do --
Similar Threads
-
Public liability insurance
By eli szoko in forum SMALL TIMBER MILLINGReplies: 10Last Post: 14th March 2012, 10:25 PM -
Machine shops for small jobs in Sydney
By zcream in forum METALWORK FORUMReplies: 3Last Post: 18th August 2010, 04:24 PM -
Product Liability
By scrapwood in forum SAFETYReplies: 12Last Post: 30th May 2010, 08:21 PM -
public liability
By weisyboy in forum SMALL TIMBER MILLINGReplies: 11Last Post: 18th July 2009, 06:59 PM -
Liability for safety. . ?
By Jedo_03 in forum SAFETYReplies: 13Last Post: 25th April 2007, 03:38 PM