Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:25am PT
|
My comment was directed at Rankin
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:38am PT
|
Blah Blah..I agree that we need a legal system. I just don't like how it has come to the point where we need to spend so much money on lawyers. Where often your case stems on how competent your lawyer is. Where if you can't afford the best lawyer, then you have little to no chance against the big dogs unless your case is very black and white. I don't know what the solution is, I just don't like what we have now.
Plus I get really annoyed when lawyers play the.. you aren't a lawyer, so you couldn't possibly understand the complexities of this case.. argument. What a load. Rankin's explanation was not particularly hard to understand, though I realize that there are other complications. I'm not saying that you made that argument. It was made earlier.
Twice in my life I needed to sue a doctor, but didn't have the funds to hire one and couldn't get one on a contingency basis because my case was not black and white, though it felt like it to me.
And please don't think that I hate all lawyers, or all corporations. I have family members in Texas who are lawyers. A few are people I deeply deeply love. Another is someone that I will never talk to again because he has abused his power as an attorney and put my family through hell more then once. Thankfully I believe in karma, and know that I don't have to do anything to him. I wish more people believed in Karma, then maybe we wouldn't need lawyers so much.
....
reddirt, I don't intend a personal attack. I just call it like I see it. Sorry if you feel disrespected, but you're overly simplistic take on this case is childish. The appeal is about third party cross claims and joint and several liability under the WLPA. REI is not making much of an argument denying fault. They want the actual manufacturer to share in liability, and I don't blame them.
You call it like you see it?? where exactly did Reddirt say or imply that all corporations were evil? That was part of your attack on her. Wasn't it?
...
Atch brings up a good point earlier. REI might have made an offer which was refused. We don't know. I like what JohnE said about them paying up and suing the manufacturer. As Reddirt is saying, that shouldn't necessarily be the responsibility of the person who was injured. REI chose the manufacturer and chose to put their name on the product.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:56am PT
|
Do we agree that we'd rather have Jeff (Pinnacle Capital Management) as lead sponsor of the FaceLift, instead of REI? Assuming it's actually going to happen and not just more Jeff-spew, that is?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 02:10am PT
|
Rankin,
Does the WLPA apply comparative fault in a strict liability tort? Wouldn't that make the liability something other than strict?
That's why REI's (or its insurer's) argument strikes me as contrary to established tort law. If the liability results from negligence, we don't need strict liability at all. The whole point of strict liability for defective products is to allocate liability where proving negligence is difficult, and would otherwise be a bar to recovery.
If this were a negligence case where comparative fault has relevance, then I don't see how the trial court could resolve it on summary judgment. It's almost always possible to manufacture some disputed issue of material fact.
John
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 02:14am PT
|
whats with graniteclimber and linking pictures to people?????
|
|
Rankin
Social climber
Greensboro, North Carolina
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 09:44am PT
|
John,
You're exactly right.
It's hard to imagine comparative fault in a case of strict liability. However, given the legal fiction of the WLPA exception--that a seller is treated as a manufacturer--it's not surprising that the issue would be raised. REI argued that even if they are treated as strictly liable, causation is even more at issue because of the constructive nature of the WLPA and, therefore, the legislature must have intended for the defendants to bring in the actual manufacturer.
However, the Ct. of App. in Johnson's case was very clear using precedent and the statute's language that REI is deemed to be strictly liable as a manufacturer and causation need not be proven. Also, the court reasoned that joining 3rd parties or doing a comparative analysis would prejudice Johnson's case as much more would be needed in discovery. In essence, the ruling was much in line with your post's reasoning--that by deeming strict liability, the legislature intended the courts to attach all of the tenants of the doctrine. Creative lawyering getting shot down, and now I doubt the Supreme Court wil grant cert.
Neil
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 10:58am PT
|
given the legal fiction of the WLPA exception--that a seller is treated as a manufacturer
That's the crux of your argument?... REI is not merely the seller. They are the manufacturer (and decided to subcontract). REI is where the buck stops.
What you've deemed "legal fiction" the court has deemed legal reality.
In your world, where would the buck stop? how about with the provider of the carbon sheets... or even more upstream, whatever entity provided the raw carbon (or whatever the fck carbon sheets are made of)... or dissipate all responsibility & call it a freak of nature that the carbon molecules misbehaved & did not bond properly? That's just fcking fabulous for all future consumers...
The consumer should not have the burden of taking all this into account when buying a bike. The consumer should have faith in a company that claims to stand by & back all the products they make (& in REI's sales line, make & sell).
The buck stops at REI who, since branding the fork as theirs, should have done their due diligence when they contracted w/ the fork manufacturer.
|
|
EWG
Trad climber
Vermont
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 11:17am PT
|
"Problem is the way the legal system works. Say REI admits fault, and pays for the medical costs in an effort to be reasonable. Lawyers now have REI admitting fault, so they decide to go for a bigger suit w/ punitive damages, etc. Of course they sue the subcontractors and anyone peripherally related also..."
no.
too many of you think you're an expert on everything.
REI paying the medical costs would almost certainly not be usable as evidence of fault.
Federal Rule of Evidence 409: "[G]enerally, evidence of payment of medical, hospital, or similar expenses of an injured party by the opposing party, is not admissible, the reason often given being that such payment or offer is usually made from humane impulses and not from an admission of liability, and that to hold otherwise would tend to discourage assistance to the injured person." I'm too lazy to check which court system this case is in (with the apparent cross claims and efforts to indemnify it could very well be federal), but most jurisdictions have a rule like 409.
Unfortunately, REI has not shown such "humane impulses."
|
|
EWG
Trad climber
Vermont
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 11:26am PT
|
Chief sez:
"PS: No REI around my neck of the woods nor do I have/own any BD cams etc."
oh thank god you're safe you ridiculous fanatic.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 11:33am PT
|
I am the absolute furthest thing from a lawyer so just curious if Federal rules of evidence applies to a WA state case. Further curiosity makes me wonder what the next court is.... and the court beyond that court?
(edited to expand question)
|
|
PAUL SOUZA
Trad climber
Clovis, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 12:15pm PT
|
REI came to ABQ and all the mom and pop (3 at the time) climbing/outdoor shops closed down.
Is it REI's fault? The city has to approve before a company can establish itself.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 12:23pm PT
|
In your world, [...]
[reddirt proceeds to describe how the rules would work in his world]
How about the rules in the real world?
But let's keep the legal arguments to the lawyers. What about the ethical arguments? I say they are completely skewed by prior bias.
There are so many reasons to give REI the benefit of the doubt: REI sells thousands of products every day. How often are they sued? Do we judge them based upon the body of all their decisions, or only focus on one controversial one? Did the board ever even hear about this particular case? (They meet a few times a year.) Maybe the management actually believed their insurance company was dealing with the situation in an ethical way. Who actually made the decisions, and what were their reasons? Was it pure greed, as has been implied? If it was greed, how did the individuals actually intend to profit?
But forget all that. It goes like this: One person buys a product at REI. Product breaks. REI doesn't immediately dole out some cash, and therefore everything about REI is evil.
The way this story is presented and judged, one would think that the board had a meeting specifically to discuss this case, and they all yelled "f*#k her" in unison.
The actual chain of events, the people involved, the decisions that were made, and the reasons they were made, were possibly a little different.
This "outrage" is just a bunch of rationalization to support the fashionable opinion that REI is somehow "bad." A lot of climbers don't like REI because they make outdoor activities a little more mainstream. Climbing is not as "exclusive" as it once was, because now climbing gear is sold in in a department store in a shopping mall. So now we are a little less cool. And it's all REI's fault.
The hilarious and sad part is that people take this foundation based upon shallow elitism and build upon it - to extreme levels.
This woman's death is a result of REI's evil? (Can REI even be evil, if it is not a human?)
No, she died because she engaged in a dangerous activity and got a bad break from mother nature.
Trying to blame a climbing accident on a bike manufacturer is also "shirking responsibility."
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 12:46pm PT
|
just one comment.
The tactic of GraniteClimber is exactly what plaintiff attorneys do in court......bring out the photos to attempt to create sympathy beyond looking at the facts of the situation. Turn it into an emotional thing, and sway the verdict.
This is what happens, and you are all witnesses as to how the system works.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 12:52pm PT
|
Why must Mangy Peasant conflate my point (REI, court says you as the manufacturer are responsible, accept the courts decision & quit hiding behind insurance companies & attorneys drawing it out) with a bunch of sh#t I never said?
Would you still give REI the benefit of the doubt had this been the fork of your bike had to shell out $10K for the engineering tests & lived w/ the initial & lasting physical consequences of having your face suddenly & w/o warning impaled...
You are totally entitled to your opinions & they serve as a reminder & warning that people like you, Rankin, etc exist.
Taking this convo to the philosophical level, esp w/o stating your philosophical framework is a useless pedantic exercise.
|
|
EWG
Trad climber
Vermont
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 12:55pm PT
|
Ken, that tactic doesn't matter here. Two summary judgements, and there is no jury for appeals. Unless this gets remanded, the plaintiffs lawyers won't even have a chance to use such heart-wrenching-emotionally-exploitative tactics.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 12:56pm PT
|
reddirt--do you honestly believe that lawyers (in this case and commenting) COULD have a philosophy?
Their impeccable training has "philosophy" steam-rolled out of them in Contracts 101 :-)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:02pm PT
|
John, even assuming that you (and others) are correct in assuming that REI's hands are tied with regard to the insurance company's decision to appeal, I disagree with your last comment.
While REI may not have been able to prevent its insurer from acting as it did, REI certainly could have done many things to show that it actually cared. If it could not legally pay the woman's medical bills, it could have started, or backed, some kind of campaign to help her. Or taken any number of other steps to show that it understood the difference between legal and moral obligations.
By hiding behind its insurance contract it has made a very public statement that it doesn't give a sh#t about what happened to Monika Johnson. Something which could just as easily have happened to your daughter, btw.
I'm no REI hater, but this is not right.
This is an unsophisticated understanding of the situation from REI's standpoint.
I serve on several corporate boards, and the realitity is that you MUST give your loyalty to the best interest of your corporation, as defined by the best information that you have. (now, that info may be faulty). So if your corporate atty, who you trust, explains to you that by taking action that supports this person, you place the corp at grave legal risk, your OBLIGATION would be to not do so. You have a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to do this, as a director of a corporation. This is what is meant by a fiduciary responsibility, in this case, of loyalty.
I am just really sad about Monika Johnson... What horrible bad luck. First to suffer from this accident and later to lose her life in the mountains. If anything, we should at least sit still for five minutes in her honor.
Beyond any doubt
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:19pm PT
|
Yes this is the primary mechanism behind which corporations hide all personal and ethical responsibility.
We all know it. It has to change.
The owners MUST be held personally liable for the actions of their company, or this will get far worse before it gets better.
Amen to that.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:21pm PT
|
Co-ops were a great resource when they were available. They fed MANY people when the economy was putting millions out on the street. Most Co-ops had provision for you to work the registers, or in the back, if you had no money, and they would pay you with grub for you and your kids. Volunteer 3-4 hours a week, and you could feed your family.
And......they.......all.......failed..........
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:26pm PT
|
The insurer is advised throughout the litigation and instructs its attorneys to fight the various legal battles and appeals.
No, the attorney represents the insured, not the insurance company, although the attorney and insured may be required to report to the insurance company according to the terms of the policy.
It's obvious you've never dealt with this. The insurance company is paying the attorneys. The insurance company selects the attorneys. The insurance company will be deciding if the attorney will be getting the next 50 cases, the insured will never see the attorney again.....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!