A man loses three fingers to a table saw. The blade has no brake. The saw has no guard that automatically covers the blade after a cut. The manufacturer includes a sticker that reads: “DANGER: Keep hands away from blade.“ The man sues. The manufacturer argues the warning is clear. The man knew saws cut flesh. The court disagrees. The case becomes a landmark in product liability law, not because the saw was poorly designed, but because the warning was legally empty.

This scenario plays out in courtrooms across the country. It is a textbook example of a product liability claim based on a missing or inadequate safety warning. In legal terms, a manufacturer has three separate duties when it sells a product. First, it must design the product safely. Second, it must manufacture the product exactly as designed. Third, it must warn users about dangers that are not obvious. When a manufacturer fails on that third duty, it can be held liable for injuries even if the product itself works exactly as intended.

The key legal concept here is the difference between a risk that is “open and obvious” and a risk that is “latent” or hidden. An open and obvious risk is one a reasonable person would recognize without being told. A knife is sharp. A hot stove burns. A ladder can fall. The law does not require manufacturers to state the obvious. Warnings exist for hidden dangers. A table saw that kicks back material toward the operator is a hidden danger to most consumers. The average weekend woodworker has no idea that a misaligned rip fence can turn a board into a projectile. The manufacturer knows this. The manufacturer has a duty to warn.

But a warning sticker alone is often not enough. Courts look at three things to decide if a warning is adequate. First, the warning must communicate the specific danger. Saying “Keep hands away” does not tell the user that the blade can snatch the wood and pull the hand into the blade. Second, the warning must give clear instructions to avoid the danger. Telling the user to “use a push stick” is specific and actionable. Third, and most critically, the warning must be proportional to the risk. If a danger is serious and foreseeable, a warning may not be legally sufficient if the manufacturer could have designed the product to eliminate the danger entirely.

This third point is where many product liability cases turn. Courts in some states follow the rule that a manufacturer cannot warn its way out of a design defect. If a design change is feasible, cost-effective, and would prevent serious injury, a warning sticker is not enough. The most famous example is the table saw litigation against Ryobi and other manufacturers. The plaintiff argued that a flesh-detecting brake system existed. SawStop had patented the technology. It worked. It stopped the blade in milliseconds when it touched skin. It cost roughly one hundred dollars per saw. Ryobi chose not to use it. Instead, they sold saws with a warning label. The court in Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Ryobi ruled that a jury could find the warning inadequate because a safer alternative design existed. The warning did not absolve the manufacturer of liability.

Here is the practical takeaway for anyone who designs, sells, or buys products. A warning is not a permission slip to ignore safety. It is a last resort. When a manufacturer knows and a customer does not, the manufacturer must speak. But if real engineering can prevent the injury, a warning on a sticker might as well be blank. The law is simple: if you can fix the danger, fix it. If you cannot fix it, warn. If you warn badly or too late, you pay.

From the consumer side, a missing or bad warning can be a powerful claim. If you are injured by a product and the danger was not obvious, ask yourself what the manufacturer told you. If they said nothing, or said something vague, or failed to mention a danger they knew about from past lawsuits, you may have a case. The manufacturer has a duty to research accidents, monitor reports, and update warnings. A warning that was adequate ten years ago may be legally insufficient today because the manufacturer now knows more about the risk.

The bottom line is not complicated. Warnings exist to bridge the gap between what the manufacturer knows and what the user assumes. When that gap remains open, the manufacturer bears the cost. The law does not let companies hide behind small print when a bigger solution was possible. A table saw without a blade brake is dangerous. But a table saw with a bad warning is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The sticker does not protect you. Only a real warning does.