Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 04:21pm PT
|
Um..no..she brought it up in the very first post.
This is like arguing with, well, a mangy peasant. You asked why she mentioned it more than once. She only mentioned it once, calling it unrelated, but suggesting that there was a POSSIBLE link -- all very reasonable. The only other times she discussed this was in direct response to people putting words into her mouth - insinuating that she had argued a direct casual relationship when she did no such thing. No one is claiming that REI is "responsible" for Johnson's death ethically or legally. Stop trying to put words in her mouth.
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?
Again, no one is blaming REI for the accident. When we go and do risky things in the mountains, we are responsible for our safety. This includes taking into account any weaknesses or limitations we have, regardless of how those weaknesses or limitations were acquired.
But to adopt your analogy to what REI is being held responsible for:
If your rope fails under bodyweight and the failure is due to manufacturing defect can you blame the manufacturer (or the company holding itself out as the manufacturer who subcontracted the manufacture of the rope overseas and sold you the rope using their good name and reputation, and which is legally responsible under the applicable product liability laws)?
Pretty easy question to answer.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 04:37pm PT
|
I do defense work but not insurance defense. I also represent plaintiffs.
I think its important from both perspectives to slow the case down to address liability and damages. There was no rush while Ms. Johnson was alive, as healthcare providers serve liens and we are required to pay the bills (at a significantly reduced percentage) once the case settles or after judgment. There is no reason to pretend immediate payment should be required once someone alleges an injury. Too many questions need to be answered.
Now that she is deceased the urgency (which never existed) is surely gone.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
|
gc,
Let's review:
FYI note the dedication of the website. 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.
People need to know what kind of a company REI really is...
Allow me to emphasize a phrase:
"unless you consider how the fork failure may have contributed to cognitive function damage"
Why is that phrase included in the post? These are not my words - didn't "put them in anyone's mouth." They are the OP's words.
Don't try to argue that that phrase isn't about linking the bike accident with the climbing accident. You lose all credibility if you go there.
Clearly, the intention of this thread is to present one side of the story and cast judgement without any attempt to consider another point of view.
And the ultimate goal is to carry out the sentence - to hurt REI's business by spreading internet myths.
"Did you hear about that girl that REI killed...yeah, bogus!"
If this were really about $10K in medical expenses, I doubt anyone would find it so necessary for "People need to know what kind of a company REI really is..."
The whole point of this thread is to suggest that REI's "greed" got someone killed.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 05:07pm PT
|
"Now that she is deceased the urgency (which never existed) is surely gone."
I think a lot of people suffer greatly from the stress of having to deal with attornies, court dates, afadavits and all those matters which are part and parcel with lawsuits. As well, many people don't "know the ropes" such as the person working in the industry who made this statements. They may very well feel a sense of urgency. OR they might view the whole procedure as an ordeal they'd like to get through quickly, so they can close the door and move on.
From an industry-inside perspective, no urgency. But from a human side, it's not an unreasonable desire.
This is the first I have heard about this tragedy. I send condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Johnson.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 05:15pm PT
|
I'm not on board with the argument that failure to consent to the existing judgments is failure to "do the right thing".
From my perspective, a ruling isn't final until it's been exhaustively argued, and that means in all available courts.
Realistically, it hasn't yet been fully decided in a court of law that REI is responsible, because the full court process is not complete.
What's the point of having an appeals process if defendants are expected to not use it? How is this different than someone being convicted of a crime? Doesn't the defendant have the right to explore all legal avenues of opposition?
As an abstract principle, I fully agree.
When you look at the uncontested facts, however, REI sold a defective bike under it's trademark and is denying liability, saying in effect that the plaintiff should recover from REI's Chinese manufacturer?!
(Apparently REI did rather meekly attempt to contest liability by providing an expert who speculated that perhaps a separate accident from years before could have caused the bike failure--the court found that REI's expert's testimony was so speculative that it was essentially useless and that there was no need for a trial to determine liability.)
Lots of misinformation on this thread, but I think the above is both accurate and explains why many people are rightfully pissed at REI for this. We don't need to indict the legal system, the insurance industry, the principles of limited liability upon which modern society is founded, etc. etc. to see that REI is acting like crap in this instance. I suppose if people want to wait until the judgment is final, that is fair enough, but remember the case will probably settle after REI loses the next appeal, and that will be that.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 05:16pm PT
|
The simple and incontrovertible fact in most of these cases is that the public tends to think of this as a moral or even a legal issue, but the entire mo fo is driven exclusively by finances.
REI's job is to limit their payout. That's what a company does for the most part. The attorneys will wrangle the cases this way and that so long as money is flowing their way. Cut the flow and they are gone, as is their "concern," which is a commodity, not a sentiment.
The reason REI doesn't "do the right thing" pay their claim is that involves money transferring from their hands to others, and REI is a ratailer who collects money. They do not disbuse it. Their whole business is set up like that. It's not personal. It's business. Expecting REI to be person is absurd. They won't pay a red cent till the last moment. Watch and see.
There's no morality play here. There should be, but as is, it's just dollars and cents.
JL
|
|
Rankin
Social climber
Greensboro, North Carolina
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 05:57pm PT
|
Well said Largo.
reddirt, when I describe a "legal fiction" it doesn't mean that I believe it isn't true or right. Rather, a "legal fiction" is the law deeming an event to meet a legal standard when it does not (ie REI is treated as manufacturer even though they did not manufacture the fork). The WLPA seems like a very good statute, as far as I'm concerned.
Washington state has two appellate courts: the Ct. of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. This appeal is the end of the line for REI and the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case. Since both parties are citizens of Washington and there is no federal issue, this case cannot be brought in federal court, because tort claims are substantive state law.
So, I don't think your argument is defying their legal obligations is a weak one. REI has the right to appeal. While it is hard not to feel sorry for Johnson, I don't think your assessment of REI is a fair one. As Largo has pointed out, they are acting as any business would.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
May 20, 2011 - 11:33pm PT
|
As an abstract principle, I fully agree.
When you look at the uncontested facts, however, REI sold a defective bike under it's trademark and is denying liability, saying in effect that the plaintiff should recover from REI's Chinese manufacturer?!
(Apparently REI did rather meekly attempt to contest liability by providing an expert who speculated that perhaps a separate accident from years before could have caused the bike failure--the court found that REI's expert's testimony was so speculative that it was essentially useless and that there was no need for a trial to determine liability.)
Lots of misinformation on this thread, but I think the above is both accurate and explains why many people are rightfully pissed at REI for this. We don't need to indict the legal system, the insurance industry, the principles of limited liability upon which modern society is founded, etc. etc. to see that REI is acting like crap in this instance.
blahblah nails it.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 01:50am 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.
If you think that REI is a "megacorp", then you have never looked at the balance sheets of insurance corps.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 02:52am PT
|
I do defense work but not insurance defense. I also represent plaintiffs.
I think its important from both perspectives to slow the case down to address liability and damages. There was no rush while Ms. Johnson was alive, as healthcare providers serve liens and we are required to pay the bills (at a significantly reduced percentage) once the case settles or after judgment. There is no reason to pretend immediate payment should be required once someone alleges an injury. Too many questions need to be answered.
Now that she is deceased the urgency (which never existed) is surely gone.
I don't know what kind of plaintiffs you represent, but I can think of a dozen reasons why resolution would be urgent to the plaintiff in this case. Remember that there is more at stake than bills from healthcare providers--there is also expenses relating to her disability, including not being able to work.
How urgent is payment for you? When you invoice a client for services, do you hope to be paid promptly or in 2-3 years?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 02:56am PT
|
The simple and incontrovertible fact in most of these cases is that the public tends to think of this as a moral or even a legal issue, but the entire mo fo is driven exclusively by finances.
REI's job is to limit their payout. That's what a company does for the most part. The attorneys will wrangle the cases this way and that so long as money is flowing their way. Cut the flow and they are gone, as is their "concern," which is a commodity, not a sentiment.
The reason REI doesn't "do the right thing" pay their claim is that involves money transferring from their hands to others, and REI is a ratailer who collects money. They do not disbuse it. Their whole business is set up like that. It's not personal. It's business. Expecting REI to be person is absurd. They won't pay a red cent till the last moment. Watch and see.
There's no morality play here. There should be, but as is, it's just dollars and cents.
JL
So are we wrong to expect any sense of morality from REI or other companies?
If so, should REI expect us to exercise any morality in using its return policy?
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Here and There
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 05:10am PT
|
REI f*#ked up by trying to be something that they're not. They sell stuff. They don't make it. As soon as you paste your name on a product (especially something that might get the user hurt) as a company you damn well better vet the manufacturer. It's YOUR name and your reputation that is at stake.
This is all about responsibility. REI screwed up when they put they're name on a product that they didn't make in an attempt to make money off of their own branding. To now shirk the responsibility of the quality of that product onto the manufacturer might be the responsible thing to do in terms of the company shareholders but any customer would disagree.
I know nothing of the law surrounding this. But if you put your name on a product and claim it as your own. .. . .STAND BEHIND IT. At some point REI called in the insurance company to deal with this shite. They didn't have to. They could have settled.
Now their name is soiled. Not that it matters because most people don't really give a shite.
Sean
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 07:11am PT
|
I base my criticism of REI on its business model, not on any morality. Frankly, when I saw this thread's title, I assumed that this was a construct of a plaintiff's lawyer. After all, it's within a defendant's right to appeal. Reading the comments made me think differently.
I think it's generally good business to stand behind the product you sell, and particularly so if it's your exclusive brand. Think of the Craftsman tool guarantee. Sears will replace a broken Craftsman tool for free, period. Dan Smith (for you Indian Rockers from 40+ years ago who may remember him) found a Craftsman screwdriver with a broken blade on the side of the road in Berkeley. It was rusted and had obviously been there a while. He took it to Sears, who replaced it with a brand new one, no questions asked.
REI's actions here tell me that it doesn't really stand behind Novarra bicycles. Forks and headsets shouldn't break like that. To the public, this looks like a defective product. REI, instead of taking responsibiity for the product it sold, is telling their buyers "get your remedy from the manufacturer. This isn't our problem." The comments on this thread demonstrate what a lot of the potential buyers think about that.
John
|
|
spidey
Trad climber
Berkeley CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 09:44am PT
|
All you people boycotting REI for this...go for it if you feel you must. It is very sad what happened to her. But know that:
1. They are busier than ever
2. They will not feel it, even a little bit.
3. DMT, Largo, etc are right - it's all about the money, the insurance co. gets to call the shots, and that is not going to change one bit if a bunch of climbers who shop on the internet anyway stop going to REI to check out their stuff before ordering it from some online retailer because its cheaper. (kind of like how REI has their bike parts made in china...because its cheaper).
4. They have to do what they can to limit their liability, otherwise they risk losing the entire business, which employs THOUSANDS of people.
5. In the end they will end up paying, most likely a very large sum.
6. Yes, REI is big. But they are a mom&pop shop in comparison to the mega-insurance corporations that as others have said, are really running sh#t in this country and probably calling the shots in this case.
|
|
spidey
Trad climber
Berkeley CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 09:51am PT
|
Also, REI's guarantee is to refund or replace any item they sell if you are not satisfied. It does not say anything about paying your medical bills or other expenses if it breaks on you. That is what the court system (however broken it may be) is for. If they just paid her, it would be considered an admission of guilt and would encourage a LOT more lawsuits that would quite conceivably put them out of business. But in the end they will have to pay so it is kind of a moot point. Hopefully they will learn from this and change/fix their outsourcing MO so as to prevent this from ever happening again.
|
|
spidey
Trad climber
Berkeley CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 09:56am PT
|
Also, does anyone else see the irony in Fattrad's apparent outrage at REI? His motto seems to be "Greed is Good", so one would think he would support a company's right to act in their own perceived self interest.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 10:04am PT
|
I think it's generally good business to stand behind the product you sell, and particularly so if it's your exclusive brand. Think of the Craftsman tool guarantee. [...]
REI's actions here tell me that it doesn't really stand behind Novarra bicycles. Forks and headsets shouldn't break like that. [...]
John, that's an apples and oranges comparison. Sears will replace the old screwdriver, but if the screwdriver breaks and hurts someone, will they pay medical bills, etc?. We don't know.
That's the question here, not whether REI should replace the bike. We don't know if REI did replace the bike in this case, but REI's replacement policy is known to be just as liberal as Sears' - to the point the many people abuse it.
BTW, Returning a screwdriver you found on the road is an interesting example...is the warranty transferable through "finder's keepers?"...if so, could someone return climbing booty to REI for replacement? ;)
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 10:54am PT
|
i have to reiterate an incident i reported on another let's-rag-REI thread. i bought a thermos from them which had a loose rubber gasket and would frequently leak. i suffered with it for several months, finally brought it in to exchange. they were still selling the same thermos, but the price had gone up slightly. the clerk wanted to give me credit for the old price and have me pay the difference. it led to an unpleasant confrontation in which he called the manager and i threatened to take them to small claims court. it must have been very entertaining to others waiting in line. i did get the new thermos without having to pay more.
it was particularly galling to me, since i had had a pleasant conversation in the same store about a week previous in which a clerk boasted about their "guarantee" in order to get someone to sign up as a member, and i told about my long membership and how sweet the annual dividend checks are. yes, they have not become a very nice outfit.
god created insurance companies to cover cases like monika's, but insurance companies have become real hardasses. generally, you have to sue the insurance company to get a reasonable settlement in a big case. see y'all in court.
got time for another gripe? i splurged on a $10 bottle of australian red wine at the convenience store in downtown josh a few weeks ago. i went to pull the cork at the campground, and the neck of the bottle broke off. nobody wanted to risk drinking wine with glass in it, so i boogied down to the store and asked for another bottle. not her responsibility, said the hardass foreign lady running the joint. the distributor will be by next monday. if they will reimburse her, she might give me a refund.
enough to make a grown man cry.
|
|
Damn this looks high
climber
Temecula, CA
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 11:02am PT
|
The wine's an easy one--pour it through a coffee filter!
As for the bike, she sued REI because you sue EVERYONE including the ones with the deepest pockets.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 12:25pm PT
|
Time to shut down this nonsense about insurance once and for all.
I checked the law firm that handled this case: it's Perkins Coie.
That's REI's regular law firm
(REI may use other firms, but they regularly use Perkins Coie). It's a large, prestigious, "white shoe" firm. I recently saw it's name in another matter--when President Obama sent his lawyer to pick up the long firm birth certificate--guess what law firm his lawyer his with?
So all of you who think that REI turned this to over to an insurance company who got a lawyer beholden to the insurance co. and not REI--you're just flat out wrong. Time to move on.
I'm keeping this a polite post but if anyone posts anything further on this thread about an insurance company handling this rather than REI I'm going to call you out on it and it may get ugly.
By the way--to the smart ass who called me out on calling REI a "megacorp"--its last reported revenue was $1.45 billion in 2009. I suppose you can argue about what a "megacorp" is but I'm feeling pretty good about this, relative to the issue we're talking about (whether REI controlled this case or was at the mercy of the big, bad insurance company).
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|