Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:24pm PT
|
tx for the thread.
rei is a big corporation, but we already knew that.
my takeaway from the thread is that the liability insurance industry is using this as a test case to prevent or at least limit future settlements and suits.
bigsteve's posts sound credible to me, given my limited experience with the subject.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:25pm PT
|
The OP.
I just learned that REI is appealing the most recent ruling in Monika's case.
For those who don't know, Monika was riding downtown in 2007 when the carbon fiber fork on her bike sheared off from the frame and caused her to face plant onto the pavement. Broken jaw, broken teeth, trauma to the brain. She was going about 5 mph on the sidewalk when it happened. Forensic testing showed that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect. Monika had to pay for the test herself, but was never reimbursed by REI. (REI issued a recall based upon the test results.)
REI has denied responsibility, maintaining that the company who manufactured the fork is responsible, not REI, even though REI sub contracted that company and sold Monika the bike under REI's brand name, Navaro. REI even went so far as to suggest that Monika was to blame for the fork's failure because the bike wasn't clean. As though it was Monika's responsibility to notice a manufacturing defect. The superior court sided with Monika, ruling that REI is responsible to Monika and that REI could pursue legal action against the manufacturing company if it wished. REI appealed, and the appellate court ruled in Monika's favor the day she died. And now REI is appealing again. Wasting the time and energy of Monika's lawyer (and friend) and family.
The whole thing makes me sick. REI never reimbursed Monika for any of her medical or dental expenses, nor for her lost wages. Monika never wanted to crucify REI. She just wanted compensation for her expenses and for not being able to work full time on account of her brain injury. (She managed to sleep only about 3 hours a night)
And yet Monika still managed to get by, despite all those expenses and side effects. She did better than get by. She managed to be happy.
REI boasts about being a co op. Pretty swell treatment of one its nicer members.
f*#k REI.
|
|
jfs
Trad climber
Upper Leftish
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:26pm PT
|
Please also note Big Steve's reasoned responses in the same thread. Useful information regardless of your opinion of REI.
Sad story and as much an indictment of our legal and insurance system as anything else.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:26pm PT
|
rei is a big corporation, but we already knew that.
I dont think the size of REI dictates its response. A small gear shop would probably react the same way (if it had the resources)..... Not that its a good thing, just greedy people being greedy.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 12:30pm PT
|
REI is/owns Novarra...
Did BP create the oil spill or its subcontractors?
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:32pm PT
|
Damn.....That's a shitty bike!
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:35pm PT
|
The position that REi should "just pay" is pretty ridiculous. Product liability cases turn to the manufacturer (not REI). The fact they re-labeled under the name Novaro does not mean the manufacturer should not bear ultimate responsibility for a design defect. There is strict liability for manufacturers. That standard should not be applied to a consumer like REI.
That being said, they may still be liable for negligence, or under a different theory.
|
|
jfs
Trad climber
Upper Leftish
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:35pm PT
|
typical interweb responses...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:40pm PT
|
You can't necessarily blame REI for what has happened. In these cases, it's often the insurer that's in control of the defence, not the insured (REI). As long as the insurer mounts a credible defence, and acts in good faith (hard to prove otherwise), it decides how the case will be fought - not the company that's insured. And as someone mentioned, the insurance industry may be worried about a precedent.
"Hard cases make bad law". A very sad business.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:40pm PT
|
How could anyone sustain that much damage at 5mph?
I wound up with major orthopedic surgery and a full year of painful rehab following an accident that occurred when I was going about 2 mph. (No head damage, though). So her outcome, while unusual, is hardly impossible.
REI's repsonse on the other hand, while hardly unusual, is inexcusable.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 12:44pm PT
|
REI has denied responsibility, maintaining that the company who manufactured the fork is responsible, not REI, even though REI sub contracted that company and sold Monika the bike under REI's brand name,
REI haters gonna hate, but there may actually be two sides to this story.
The above argument does seem reasonable.
Would the mom and pop bike shop have responded any differently?
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:09pm PT
|
I obviously don't know all the details about how this case worked, but if it was a manufacturing defect, I would think that the fault is with the fork manufacturer, not with REI. The Novara bikes are REI's house brand, but I don't think they make them. I'm sure they are made at some factory in China, and I'd bet that the CF forks are made in China or Taiwan as well. I'd imagine a small shop would act the same if this was a Specialized bike they sold.
The exception to this would be if the failure was due to an assembly problem...i.e. an REI employee cranked the headset down too much or accidentally cut the steerer tube carbon fiber. But if it was an actual manufacturer defect, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to hold REI liable.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:18pm PT
|
I don't understand not holding REI liable. So if a Sears brand breaks in a dangerous manner, you don't hold Sears responsible? I don't understand this. Can someone explain this? What about a Vons brand food product? If it kills someone? Vons has no responsibility? They get to put their name on it, get all the benefits but have no responsibility if it goes bad? Something about that sounds like baloney to me. So explain it to me please.
And this business about it being part of the contract that the insurer gets to decide. That sounds like more big business bullshit to me. What happened to the "customer is always right"? If a big company like REI stood up to the insurance industry, then we would have less of this bullsh#t.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:25pm PT
|
John, you have mandatory third party liability insurance to cover operation of your vehicle, right? The not so fine print in your policy clearly states that in the event of a claim or suit, the insurer (not you) has the right to appoint the lawyer who will defend it, and the right to decide what the defence will be. There are few limitations on the insurer's right to conduct the defence.
That's standard in the world of insurance, and part of the trade offs. And given that it is the insurance company that is likely to be paying any decision or settlement, doesn't it make sense if they hold the reins?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:30pm PT
|
I agree that they insurer should hold the reins. And I am aware that I don't get to decide on my car insurance. My insurance settled in one case, which actually hurt me. I think the insuree should have some control. If that means their rates go up because of the decision they make, then thats what it means. But even REI has to know that if this case goes viral, then they will lose a lot of goodwill. I just don't like the whole notion of the insurance industry being the decider which absolves the big companies from any decision making or responsibility once it is in the hands of the insurer.
So what about my question about companies like Sears and Vons? Do they hold no responsibility?
Edit: Sears, Vons, REI, and other major companies decide who will represent their brand. They chose the manufacturer and decide the parameters. So why doesn't this make them at least partially liable?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:31pm PT
|
I challenge you to find a "Novara" brand bike for sale new by any Mfg anywhere that is not REI. "Novara" is REI's house brand. Had this been a "Trek" or "Giant", I'd have some sympathy, but it's their brand which they import and control and theirs alone.
F*#kers.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:33pm PT
|
John,
Not a lawyer, but I took a business law class once. So I know just enough to give bad advice...
What I did learn is that there are some very established rules for product liability and negligence. Probably millions of people have been injured using manufactured products that originate through complex manufacturing chains. There are thousands of these types of cases and many decades of precedent. A lot of smart people (i.e. judges) have analyzed these types of issues over the years and developed rules for determining who is responsible.
Like any part of the legal system, the rules are imperfect, but a tremendous amount of logic and reasoning has gone into developing them.
In this case, it may seem reasonable to blame REI since they sold the product. But think about the practical realities: How could REI really ensure everything they sell is safe? Do they have to test every single product they purchase for resale? Does every distributor or reseller along the production chain have to do the same?
Does the mom and pop climbing shop test every piece of climbing gear they put on their shelves? Should they be required to do so?
Is this case different because REI owns the Novara brand, but it is manufactured by a third party?
So maybe the managers of REI are being jerks, or maybe they have a legitimate legal foundation for their position. I honestly don't know. That's why we have courts. Let them decide.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:39pm PT
|
MP asks,
In this case, it may seem reasonable to blame REI since they sold the product. But think about the practical realities: How could REI really ensure everything they sell is safe? Do they have to test every single product they purchase for resale? Does every distributor or reseller along the production chain have to do the same?
Is this case different because REI owns the Novara brand, but it is manufactured by a third party?
Two courts have already ruled that REI is liable.
From OP link (snipped)
REI has denied responsibility, maintaining that the company who manufactured the fork is responsible, not REI, even though REI sub contracted that company and sold Monika the bike under REI's brand name, Navaro. The superior court sided with Monika, ruling that REI is responsible to Monika and that REI could pursue legal action against the manufacturing company if it wished. REI appealed, and the appellate court ruled in Monika's favor the day she died. And now REI is appealing again.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 19, 2011 - 01:40pm PT
|
Mangy, I think that it is one thing to sell a brand like Trek, but another to brand your own item. If you brand something, you are saying that it has the REI quality, and that should mean that you hold some responsibility to whether it is well made or not. If they sell a Trek brand bike, they don't decide where it is manufactured. But if they sell an REI brand bike, they do. So they could decide to go with the lowest bidder, and they should be held responsible for that decision if it goes bad.
The courts are where that should be decided. If REI can show they they did their level best to buy from a reputable manufacturer, and that they didn't push in any way to cut corners, but instead looked for a solid build, then they should have less liability. But they still put their name on it, and that is the crux. It is much different to sell someone elses brand, like Trek, or Bianchi. Its doubtful if any mom or pop outfit would have their own brand. If they do, then they are responsible for how it is manufactured, because they chose the manufacturer.
They don't have to test every piece of gear that isn't their brand. But they do hold responsibility for what they put their name on. You get a benefit, you should have the liability.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!