Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:33pm PT
|
[...] with a bunch of sh#t I never said? You said in the OP that this bike accident contributed to her death. It is a bunch of sh#t, and you said it.
Would you still give REI the benefit of the doubt had this [...]
When something happens personally to me, I know all the facts, and I form my opinion based on the facts. None of us really have a complete understanding of "this" story, do we?
You are totally entitled to your opinions & they serve as a reminder & warning that people like you, Rankin, etc exist. Yes, people who objectively consider both sides of a controversial story do exist.
Taking this convo to the philosophical level, esp w/o stating your philosophical framework is a useless pedantic exercise.
My philosophical framework? WTF?
Um...btw, perhaps you should re-read the title of your thread.
You started this thread with the intentions of declaring REI to be evil based upon a sketchy version of a story posted on the internet. You probably hoped to get a chorus of responses along the lines of "yeah man, they really suck!" What you got was a mix of agreement, along with some well-reasoned skepticism and dissent.
Sorry 'bout that. Welcome to the internet.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
|
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.....
Not much is obvious except you're generally clueless.
No one posting here has any idea what insurance involvement, if any, has been in this case.
You're writing as if the insured is Joe Blow car owner who gets into a crash. In that situation, I generally agree with your thoughts. But that has little if anything to do with a products liability suit when the insured is a megacorop such as REI.
This notion that REI has no control over how product liability suits filed against it are resolved is flat out absurd--I'm not going to waste time bickering with you about that.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:47pm PT
|
You said in the OP that this bike accident contributed to her death. It is a bunch of sh#t, and you said it.
Just to be clear, she said that it may have contributed to her death. In a later post she then pointed out her thinking behind this. It sounds possible. If you don't think it sounds possible, then argue that, but don't overstate her position which you have done more then once.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:49pm PT
|
Mangy: You said in the OP that this bike accident contributed to her death. It is a bunch of sh#t, and you said it.
What the OP said was this:
" Monika has since died in an unrelated incident (unless you consider how the fork failure may have contributed to cognitive function damage) this past season."
Sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 01:53pm PT
|
This notion that REI has no control over how product liability suits filed against it are resolved is flat out absurd--I'm not going to waste time bickering with you about that.
If you do happen to have time to waste, could be worth it to enlighten the enlightenable... as MANY on this forum & others believe it is now all out of REI's hands.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:53pm PT
|
You're writing as if the insured is Joe Blow car owner who gets into a crash. In that situation, I generally agree with your thoughts. But that has little if anything to do with a products liability suit when the insured is a megacorop such as REI.
This notion that REI has no control over how product liability suits filed against it are resolved is flat out absurd--I'm not going to waste time bickering with you about that.
I agree with this, except that even Joe Blow the car owner has complete control over his defense except to the extent he voluntarily turns it over to the insurance company's lawyers. The insurance policy may have a clause specifying that he won't be covered unless he allows the insurance company to control his defense, but Joe Blow always has a choice.
And has already been pointed out, even if REI has turned this over to insurance company lawyers (but that is just speculation), they could still have assisted with medical costs without in any way undermining their case.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 01:58pm 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.
Corporations, and the legal notion of limited liability, have been around for about 300 years or so. Mostly in the western world.
During that time, in the societies that have had corporations, have things gotten far better, or far worse?
What was the world like before corporations?
In what part of the world was climbing developed? Why did these folks have the time and economic resources to pursue these types of leisure activities? Is there any relationship to corporations? (so how id nylon and aluminum alloys come about, anyway?)
What would the world be like without corporations?
In the past century or so, some societies made efforts to rid themselves of corporations. How did that work out? Were these societies more ethical?
Are corporations really all about hiding ethical responsibility? So why do all credible business schools require training in ethics? (Is it really just window dressing?) MBAs and lawyers generally have put more effort into studying the rules of ethics than the rest of the population. Why are they paying expensive tuition to take business ethics class instead of a "how to screw everyone" class?
Sorry DMT. I know you're a smart guy, but this anti-corporate rhetoric lacks any substance. The history of the world proves it.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 02:01pm PT
|
You started this thread with the intentions of declaring REI to be evil based upon a sketchy version of a story posted on the internet. You probably hoped to get a chorus of responses along the lines of "yeah man, they really suck!" What you got was a mix of agreement, along with some well-reasoned skepticism and dissent.
Sorry 'bout that. Welcome to the internet.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person.
Please recheck your powers of telepathy as you missed the mark w/ trying to articulate my intentions & hope. The mind reading machine you bought (from REI?) is obviously broken.
What would potentially make you a horrible person are your sketchy assumptions & inability to sac up & back up. And your annoying habit of misattributing words.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 02:30pm PT
|
the bike fiasco left her
1. some head trauma, potentially impaired judgement
2. needing to wear a full face helmet, potentially reducing her field of view when she was on Red Mtn
I don't think I'm "misattributing."
Here's my issue with the reasoning:
#1 is a guess.
#2 is a pure speculation.
And there is an implied #3: The conclusion that REI contributed to her death.
Keep this in mind: REI did not force her to go alpine climbing. It's her decision to climb that was the overwhelming factor leading to her death.
If they had paid her bills, would #1 and #2 would still be true? Would she still have gone climbing?
I think it's a little ironic that you use the term "shirking responsibility" to describe REI's position.
I'm not trying to be callous. There is a tragedy in this story and we shouldn't forget that. But I don't think casting blame in the wrong direction and proclaiming it on the internet is a respectful way to deal with it.
Apologies for the sarcasm. I can get carried away.
Best wishes, climb safe.
 Dave
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 02:51pm PT
|
I am not an "REI basher." I consider REI to be a "good" organization, but in this case they are not being as good as I would like.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 03:00pm PT
|
the bike fiasco left her
1. some head trauma, potentially impaired judgement
2. needing to wear a full face helmet, potentially reducing her field of view when she was on Red Mtn
I don't think I'm "misattributing."
Here's my issue with the reasoning:
#1 is a guess.
#2 is a pure speculation.
Mangy, look at the language you quoted. It is not guesswork. It is not speculation. It is not reasoning. It consists of two factual statements.
But if those factual statements are CORRECT, then it is REASONABLE to state that the accident MAY HAVE indirectly contributed towards her fatal accident.
The way it was put in the OP was not unreasonable:
Monika has since died in an unrelated incident (unless you consider how the fork failure may have contributed to cognitive function damage) this past season.
In any case this is a red herring because no one is attempting to recover damages for wrongful death from REI, simply medical expenses and other costs directly attributable to the accident.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 03:07pm PT
|
There's a difference b/t "contributed" & "caused". I stand by what I said. Stepping off a cornice is not a rare way to die.
You are crossing the line when you attribute #3 to me. Do you always shove words in other peoples mouths or more importantly, you really ought to quit for your own sake if nothing at all.
The fact still remains that REI has chosen to not pay claims, has been found responsible by the court in accordance w/ the law, and is SHIRKING that responsibility by choosing to appeal.
Even if you are playing devil's advocate Mangy, you are not doing a good job when you chose to focus on a tangential point & keep making false assumptions.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 03:13pm PT
|
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.
The pictures are relevant, but are only a factor with regard to REI to the extent REI is responsible. I believe that REI is responsible both legally and ethically. Two courts have agreed that REI is responsible legally, but it is now in the hands of the Wash. Supreme Court, and we have to wait for their determination.
Please view the REI Novara web site:
http://www.rei.com/novara/novara-bikes
REI uses pictures for their emotional impact to sell their bicycles for their business advantage. They will also use pictures in the lawsuit if it is to their advantage to do so. So why there the implication here that it is unfair for the victim to do so?
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 03:15pm PT
|
reddirt,
If her death after the bike accident is a "tangental point", then why do you mention it, more than once?
What was your motivation for starting this thread? To help recover financial damages for Monika's estate?
Or is it to spread negative information about REI in order to hurt their business?
I may be a poor devil's advocate. I may be the devil himself. But I'm afraid you are no saint either.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2011 - 03:23pm PT
|
I bring up the case as it should be known that REI keeps refusing to do the right thing as dictated by the court of law.
I bring up her death b/c inevitably there may be people referring to her in the present tense. In various legal & outdoor industry blogs & newsletters they do the same. It is to prevent confusion.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 03:51pm PT
|
"The fact still remains that REI has chosen to not pay claims, has been found responsible by the court in accordance w/ the law, and is SHIRKING that responsibility by choosing to appeal."
Whats the rush? There is no need to pay now reddirt, Ms. Johnson will never see a dime of the recovery. Let em sort out the legal issues fer chrissakes. If the court of appeal gets reversed, will you start a new thread apologizing to REI for exercising its legal rights?
I understand you and GC love to cry loudest for the alleged victim. But without any facts and a really weak understanding of our legal system, it's hard to take you two seriously.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 03:53pm PT
|
If her death after the bike accident is a "tangental point", then why do you mention it, more than once?
Because you and others keep bringing it up and asking him/her about this.
Edit: Reread all of reddirt's posts. Other then in the OP which called the accident "unrelated" reddirt is only responding to you and others on this.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 04:06pm PT
|
Whats the rush?
This is what I would expect a insurance defense litigator to say.
There's certainly no rush for REI's lawyers. They will continue to accrue billable hours.
There is also no rush for REI. "Never" would be good time for them.
REI is certainly within its legal rights to refuse to pay a dime and appeal the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. In this case, this is not hyperbole because that is exactly what they are doing.
Aatchafalaya, if you borrow your partner's rack to lead a pitch and then proceed to drop it while putting him on belay, what would you do? Would you offer to replace the gear you damaged and follow through? Or would you insist to litigate the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (or as far as the appellate courts will allow it to go)?
I believe you are confusing "doing the right thing" morally with "exercising all possible avenues of appeal" legally. Just because you CAN refuse to pay someone until absolutely forced to by the court of last appeal, does not mean that this is something you SHOULD do.
Edit: Point taken about her death reducing the urgency. But she only died a few months ago. What was there excuse before the accident?
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 04:14pm PT
|
If her death after the bike accident is a "tangental point", then why do you mention it, more than once?
Because you and others keep bringing it up and asking him/her about this.
Um..no..she brought it up in the very first post. Not only brought it up, but linked the two events.
But since you like simplistic climbing metaphors, let's try this one:
If you decide to lead a route at your limit, can't do the moves, take a fall and hurt yourself, do you blame the guy who caused the the rockfall that hit your head a few months earlier?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!