Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 01:55am PT
|
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2003-06-18/news/who-owns-rei/4/
AT SOME point, REI's board of directors changed the bylaws to make it virtually impossible for anyone not of their choosing to join their ranks. These days, if you'd like to get onto the boardand you might, because its members are paid $15,000 a year, the chairman $20,000you must win the approval of its nominating committee, a subcommittee of the board. Failing that, you must gather the signatures of 1 percent of the co-op's active membershipabout 21,000 names. To make things just a little more challenging, the co-op won't let you even peek at the membership list, which they say is not released for privacy reasons.]/b]
But let's say you're stubborn and willing to stand outside an REI store and gather member signatures for six months or so. Your name will, indeed, be placed on the ballotclearly distinguishable from the board-nominated, board-endorsed candidates. In the words of a straight-faced corporate spokesperson, "the petition process sets a high threshold for those who wish to be placed on the ballot by petition, to ensure serious candidates."
DENNIS MADSEN AND I are having a civil but strained go-round over REI's refusal to share financial information. I own one share in this co-op, and because publicly traded companies like Nordstrom and Weyerhaeuser are required by law to make such information public, I think I have a right to see this stuff.
Q: "You don't disclose certain financial information, such as executive compensation, which under law is freely disclosed for all publicly traded companies. It surprised me that in a company which is purportedly owned by consumers, that information is not available."
A: "We don't disclose any. . . . "
Q: "What's the rationale for that?"
A: "Why would we want to?"
Q: "Because we're democratic?"
A: "I guess we'll disagree on that one. I can't think there's any reason we want to disclose confidential information like thator about where the company is going or headed. . . . This is a highly competitive business, retailing is today. There are folks out there, across the nation, who are teeing up. The outdoor industry is the next thing that they want to go after. And for us to share sensitive information about the company to our competitors would compromise our ability to sustain this organization."
UW BUSINESS ethics professor Jones rolls his eyes when I tell him REI won't disclose how much its officers are being paid. "Does your tape recorder capture me rolling my eyes? You can say, 'Professor Jones rolled his eyes when he heard that lame excuse.'
"They don't want you to know how much they're making because they don't want it publicized. Is there any other reasonable conclusion to reach?"
Says David Ortman, executive director of the Northwest Corporate Accountability Project and a longtime REI member: "It is disturbing to learn that REI is unwilling to make its financial information available to its members and the public. The basic definition of a cooperative is that of a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. That means a co-op such as REI must be accountable to its members and to the public."
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 02:50am PT
|
^^^^^
Not even worth responding to.
Ken M.:
I went to the site that was linked, and about two posts in a see a post by a lawyer, who was a bike maker, who knew Monika. He fairly totally refutes every thing that you say about the law in Wa, and how product liability works.
How about a link or a quote? I can't find anything two posts in or even ten posts in.
At last count, at least five lawyers (that I know of) have weighed in on this thread. This isn't counting people who aren't lawyers but who have taken some law classes.
Edit: Never mind, I see the post you're talking about, but it's TWENTY POSTS down, not two. So you were only off by an order of magnitude. Lack of attention to detail?
What that poster states regarding the law is not inconsistent with what blahblah and others stated here. I don't see him "totally refuting" anything what blahblah says and in fact they appear to be in agreement. You call blahblah ignorant of the law, but he is a lawyer who has read and understands the court of appeals decision.
That poster does speculate that the insurance company is making all the decisions, but this is just, as has been noted here, speculation. The poster does not appear to be aware that the litigation is being handled by REI's regular outside law firm, which indicates that this case is less controlled by an insurance company then may be expected.
Otherwise, I agree with his assessment:
Division I ruled in favor of Monika, rejecting REI’s argument that the CF provisions of RCW Ch. 22 trumped the WPLA imposition of manufacturer liability on private label sellers. Division I reasoned, among other things, that allowing REI to allocate fault would have the effect of abrogating the private labeler liability of the WPLC. Division I’s opinion is very well reasoned and well written. While it is difficult to forecast what WA Supreme Court will do, I am optimistic that Division I’s ruling will be affirmed.
Translation: REI is up sh#t creek without a paddle. They should expect to lose this case.
Ken M.:
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.....
Ken M., are you willing to admit that you were wrong on this? The attorneys are from REI's regular law firm, Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie advertising its affiliation with REI all over its web site and in other places on the Internet. Example "Perkins Coie: Legal Counsel to great companies like Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)." Blahblah--the lawyer you accuse of being ignorant of the law--took the initiative in finding this out.
Also Ken M., why the vitriol towards Monika's friends? Do you really think the Monika's friends are "f*#king a dead person?" Why that choice in words?
You have shown in other threads that you can be rational and reasonable, but are choosing not to be so in this thread. What emotional buttons have been pushed here on this thread?
Me: First I wouldn't call it a "smear" campaign. That implies that false or libelous statements are being made, and I haven't seen that.
Ken. M.: Actually, that has been exactly what I've seen.
Can you identify even ONE? Or are you just making emotional statements you cannot substantiate again?
|
|
Fig's Lady
Sport climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 03:19am PT
|
My sympathies on the death of the plaintiff, friend, etc.
Our society functions on one level regarding law suits and on another level pertaining to simple decency.
I sincerely hope REI evaluates what is their function in all of this.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 05:06am PT
|
This thread has really opened my eyes about the vast difference between the REI of my long-time perception and the reality of what REI is. I'll buy my gear elsewhere from now on.
And, btw, this...
Ultimately, you are responsible for one thing in this world. Yourself!
...is arguably the single stupidest statement I've read on the Taco, and that's saying something!
"Yourself" is also responsible for the causal chains you put into motion, along with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of those causal chains. What you're saying amounts to: "Hey, trundle a huge boulder that takes out a houseful of people, and you have no responsibility! Maybe the boulder or gravity is responsible, but you're only responsible for yourself!" What a septic tank full!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 11:16am PT
|
I am not going to get into a WOS thread or circular religious discussion here.
Amazing! So even YOU are able to detect the utter irrelevancy of those topics to this thread. What self-control on your part to not drag us down to quite that level of irrelevancy!
So, on THIS topic, if I get your babbling correctly, you seem to think that the gross negligence of other people is something you can foresee and protect yourself against? Even a drunk driver?
Wow... so if a drunk driver suddenly swerves and head-ons your kids, and kills them all at the same time, YOUR brilliant response would be this? "Stupid kids! I tried to teach them to protect themselves, but they just failed miserably. Not the drunk's fault; he was just doing what drunks do. But my stupid kids should have known better, and their failure to take responsibility for THEMSELVES is what killed them."
Are you REALLY trying to float something this insane?
Or, some guy goes postal in some place where your kids are and kills them all. Again, all you can say is: "Stupid kids! I tried to teach them to protect themselves, but their pathetic failure is what killed them."
So, on your view, NOBODY has any responsibility whatsoever for the things they do that negatively affect other people? We can just do whatever we feel like doing to anybody at any time? If I trundle a boulder through your house, killing all of your kids, you are really going to "man up" and respond by saying, "Dumb kids failed to protect themselves?"
And on your view, you wouldn't even imagine to retaliate, even if I trundled the boulder intentionally to hurt your family? You would even walk up to me, shake my hand, and say, "NICE trundle, dude! You got everybody but me in one shot!"
Come ON! You cannot be this stupid! CAN you???
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 02:16pm PT
|
Did REI ever issue a recall for these forks?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 03:34pm PT
|
They issued a recall for the bicycles.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09234.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2009
Release # 09-234 Firm’s Recall Hotline: (800) 426-4840
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908
Bicycles Recalled by REI Due to Fork Failure
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Product: 2005 Novara Trionfo Bicycles
Units: About 260
Distributor: Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), of Kent, Wash.
Hazard: The fork can separate from the steerer tube which can cause the rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard.
Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received two reports of forks separating causing riders to fall. Injuries reported include a fractured clavicle, broken teeth, facial damage and head injuries.
Description: This recall involves 2005 Novara Trionfo bicycles with Aprebic carbon fiber forks. The bicycles are blue and white with black forks, and have the name “Novara” printed on the bars.
Sold at: REI retail stores nationwide from January 2005 through August 2006 for between $720 and $1,900.
Manufactured in: Taiwan
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and return them to an REI retail store a free repair.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact REI at (800) 426-4840 between 7 a.m. and 2 a.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.rei.com
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 03:54pm PT
|
#2 REI could have chosen to settle OUT OF COURT thus avoiding setting
A legal precedent; this is what Coleman does when someone suffocates
In one of their tents (happens every year).
Frog-e, when you said the above, I am curious when you passed the Bar in the State of Washington? In the OP, the link led to the 20th post by an attorney, who rode with Monika, who wrote:
I am an attorney and a former bicycle framebuilder (now a hobby). Some of these issues lie outside the sweet spot of my legal expertise, but I'll offer these comments:
1. I highly doubt that the decision to appeal is in REI's control. It is more likely in the control of REI's product liability insurance carrier. The policy likely provides that the carrier (who is ultimately on the hook to pay) controls all decisions re settlement and litigation. I've never heard of a PL policy that gives control over such matters to the insured. Such a rare provision might exist in some rare policy, but I've never seen one nor have I heard of one. So, I will assume that REI has no control over the decision to appeal.
So it would seem that your legal *opinion* is rather worthless, which means that any other opinions that you have on any other technical matters are worth about as much.......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 03:54pm PT
|
Let's check your facts, Riley:
Thread starts discussing legal/moral RESPONSIBILITY in Monica's case. Back and forth about REI's RESPONSIBILITY in the case, with pretty overwhelming weight of evidence (as substantiated by TWO courts) that REI is legally responsible in the case. Emphasis on legal/moral RESPONSIBILITY throughout the thread.
You post up with an apparent non-sequitur (which you apparently teach your kids, God help 'em) to the effect that something is "fishy" about the case because the poor woman later died from entirely unrelated causes. You state that the ONLY responsibility to be discussed in the case is PERSONAL responsibility. Context is clear: legal/moral responsibility.... Thread is clear: legal/moral responsibility. YOUR answer? It's HER problem; she has to be responsible for what happens to her in ANY event. Ridiculous lines about "shoulder rolling," etc. (gag!)
I respond stating that your "answer" in context is insane (and God help your kids (and us) if this is the world-view of legal/moral responsibility you teach them)! I point out that your "answer" basically flies in the face of millennia of legal/moral intuitions and tort law spanning EVERY known civilization: we are responsible NOT ONLY for our own selves but for the causal chains and their consequences that we set into motion.
YOU respond that basically Monica evidences a living "train wreck" to the effect that she has basically been selected out. This is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as the issue at hand is manufacturing defect and who is responsible for it. You reiterate your twisted notion of personal (only) responsibility, citing absurdities: you are responsible for the drunk driver taking you out; you are responsible for any injury you might incur as a result of similar defects as in Monica's case; etc.
I respond with clear-cut counter-examples to your absolutely insane perspective of personal responsibility.
You finally respond with, basically, "I didn't mean it! You have completely misunderstood me. You are the bad one for missing my points so completely."
Okay, now we're up to the present, so let's look at some of your (insane) points as written to see who is misunderstanding reality.
Only you have the ability to not be there that day. Whether it be luck or fate or instincts or common sense or Zen balance. Something about your survival instincts will hopefully tell you " this doesn't feel right."
Okay, so it's Monica's fault that she didn't perceive "something doesn't feel right" about her bicycle fork suddenly and catastrophically sheering. I guess that her major shortcoming was that she didn't exercise the sort of omniscience that you apparently possess, as it would have taken Godlike perception to detect the manufacturing defect prior to the sudden shearing. How am I misunderstanding this? You flat-out state that SHE should have realized "something's not right" or had some karma or zen or some other septic-tank-full way of perceiving life as you do. HER fault; HER responsibility; NOT REI's.
Anyone can be at fault- legally, physically, morally, ethically, etc- but so what- if you are dead- SO WHAT. Only you are ultimately responsible for your own life.
So, presumably, this is the place in which you are "clearly" making a different point than the legal/moral responsibility that the entire rest of the thread has been about. Here you are simply stating the truism: You're gonna die. Perhaps you MIGHT have some capacity to avoid it in some contexts, and if you could have and didn't, then "you are responsible." But this truism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the content of this thread. The question of this thread is to what extent REI is responsible for this woman's injuries. Your truisms don't speak to that question at all; and when you put them in the CONTEXT of the surrounding discussion, they do worse than contribute nothing: they amount to a sweeping generalization about tort responsibility that is plainly ridiculous. If you didn't intend to be speaking to the issues of tort, then go find yourself another thread, because that is what THIS thread is about. And don't complain when somebody calls you out for making a sweeping, ridiculous claim that in context is apparently about the present discussion. On the other hand, if you are now simply back-peddling... well, then it's pathetic.
You guys are asking us to not buy from REI because a girl fell on her face while riding a bike?
Oh, okay, we're back to the tort context after all. I guess I wasn't confused! So, your take on literally hundreds of posts, including links to court documents, etc. is that "the girl fell on her face." Uhhhh, dude, you seem to be intentionally missing a few pertinent points: 1) Her fork sheared due to (professionally determined) manufacturing defect; 2) the failure was apparently sudden and without warning; 3) REI has a prima facie legal responsibility (determined by two courts) to "back" the manufacture of a product bearing their brand and sold exclusively by them. And YOU can sum everything up as: "The girl fell on her face?" That hyper-over-simplification is so crass that it is beyond belief. I mean, seriously, if you can sum up the known facts that way, you are so out of touch with normal human perception that it is frightening! So, when I trundle a massive boulder through your house, sum THAT up as, "We got ourselves crushed." That would be an EXACTLY comparable summation of the situation.
Don't give people or REI's or cornices or whatever the chance to kill you. If I let some drunk driver hit me while riding my bike on the side of the road- in my way of thinking- I f*#ked up- I protect myself and I am responsible for myself. It is certainly what I teach my kids.
Your summation paragraph. In this paragraph you tell us that you teach your kids to be God. They must be God in order to foresee all of the dangers stalking them at any given moment: manufacturing defects undetectable in advance by anybody but God; drunk drivers suddenly swerving into your lane that are undetectable in advance by anybody but God; massive boulders trundling through your house that are undetectable in advance by anybody but God; entire floors collapsing out from under you (which does actually happen) that are undetectable in advance by anybody but God; and the litany of deaths, that only a Godlike being could detect in advance fast enough to avoid, goes on and on.
And the reaction time of you and your kids must also be Godlike! Even if you get that requisite split second to detect that something's amiss, you must be prepared to "shoulder roll it out," whatever 'it' might be at any given second! In that split second as the drunk swerves into your lane, INSTANTLY you must know how to "shoulder roll" your way out of that situation. And if you simply don't react fast enough (the typical human condition), well then, the results of accident to YOU were YOUR fault because ONLY YOU can EVER be responsible for what happens to you!
Riley, not only is your blathering not even remotely on track with the surrounding discussion, it reveals (an apparently unrelated, by your own claims) amazing stupidity as an overarching world-view; and, seriously, God help your kids and us that they grow up sharing this distorted and impossible notion of reality.
The FACTS of life include that many people die through NO fault of their own. It is flatly impossible to have the level of awareness/reactions to avoid trauma that you state is the SOLE and PERSONAL responsibility of every person. The REASON why we have the same basic tort intuitions across cultures and times is that WE (that is, we NORMAL human beings) recognize that OTHERS can well be responsible for events that damage or kill us; that had they NOT ACTED as they did, the events that damaged or killed us would not have occurred! Causal chains can be set in motion through negligence or malice that UNAVOIDABLY result in damage or death to us; and, here's the kicker that you NEED to get your mind around, THEY (not the damaged or dead persons) are RESPONSIBLE for the results!
I literally cannot imagine the world you apparently live in. But, whatever, that view is irrelevant to this present discussion, because THIS discussion presumes the FACTS of my foregoing paragraph, and these are FACTS that you apparently do not subscribe to (God help your kids!).
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2011 - 04:05pm PT
|
But it simply comes down to natural selection
You get trundled by a boulder and killed?
You are dead...it is over and it doesn't matter whose fault it is..
You are dead....
-Riley Wyna what a reminder to check on Pete Absolon's widow's thread.
Sounds like this girl had at least a few chances to learn this and failed.
-Riley Wyna
Radical, I feel sorry for those whose lives intertwine w/ yours. I feel sorry for you daughters & your patients.
Fortunately you are not the State of WA nor her medic.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:08pm PT
|
Graniteclimber says
Edit: Never mind, I see the post you're talking about, but it's TWENTY POSTS down, not two. So you were only off by an order of magnitude. Lack of attention to detail?
What that poster states regarding the law is not inconsistent with what blahblah and others stated here. I don't see him "totally refuting" anything what blahblah says and in fact they appear to be in agreement. You call blahblah ignorant of the law, but he is a lawyer who has read and understands the court of appeals decision.
That poster does speculate that the insurance company is making all the decisions, but this is just, as has been noted here, speculation. The poster does not appear to be aware that the litigation is being handled by REI's regular outside law firm, which indicates that this case is less controlled by an insurance company then may be expected.
Amazing, you have to defend blahblah. Never knew a lawyer who needed someone to speak for them. Interesting that you describe the lawyer that rode with Monika as "speculating, and that what blahblah, who doesn't appear to have a license to practice in that state "has read and understands" the decision.
So, you take the lawyer who is most likely to be sympathetic to Monika and try to pull his words down....."speculating" (most would call it a legal opinion).
Ken M., are you willing to admit that you were wrong on this? The attorneys are from REI's regular law firm, Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie advertising its affiliation with REI all over its web site and in other places on the Internet. Example "Perkins Coie: Legal Counsel to great companies like Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)." Blahblah--the lawyer you accuse of being ignorant of the law--took the initiative in finding this out.
No. My actual experience is that law firms do business with many companies, AS YOU'VE QUOTED ABOVE. They are NOT an "in house" firm. My experience is that Corps often have a number of firms that they do business with, as well. It keeps everyone on their toes, and is a good business practice.
Also Ken M., why the vitriol towards Monika's friends? Do you really think the Monika's friends are "f*#king a dead person?" Why that choice in words?
Identify one of Monika's friends, and my vitriol against them? So far, no one will confess to being one of her friends.
Can you identify even ONE? Or are you just making emotional statements you cannot substantiate again?
REI could have chosen to settle OUT OF COURT thus avoiding setting
A legal precedent; this is what Coleman does when someone suffocates
In one of their tents (happens every year).
I am an attorney and a former bicycle framebuilder (now a hobby). Some of these issues lie outside the sweet spot of my legal expertise, but I'll offer these comments:
1. I highly doubt that the decision to appeal is in REI's control. It is more likely in the control of REI's product liability insurance carrier. The policy likely provides that the carrier (who is ultimately on the hook to pay) controls all decisions re settlement and litigation. I've never heard of a PL policy that gives control over such matters to the insured. Such a rare provision might exist in some rare policy, but I've never seen one nor have I heard of one. So, I will assume that REI has no control over the decision to appeal.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:10pm PT
|
This was the best thing I've read:
Now can someone highlight actual facts of this case?
Because all I have read is that REI this and REI that and they didnt help the poor girl, blah blah blah
You guys are asking us to not buy from REI because a girl fell on her face while riding a bike? A girl who is now dead because she fell off a cornice?
I read that somebody wants to even blame her falling off a cornice on REI.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:26pm PT
|
Riley, no kidding.
It's best to keep the arguments on contentious issues pretty tight.
BTW, for what it is worth, Monika was a fellow health care worker.
-------------
Locker, with that, I totally agree.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:29pm PT
|
2, 2011 - 12:54pm PT
#2 REI could have chosen to settle OUT OF COURT thus avoiding setting
A legal precedent; this is what Coleman does when someone suffocates
In one of their tents (happens every year).
Frog-e, when you said the above, I am curious when you passed the Bar in the State of Washington? In the OP, the link led to the 20th post by an attorney, who rode with Monika, who wrote:
I am an attorney and a former bicycle framebuilder (now a hobby). Some of these issues lie outside the sweet spot of my legal expertise, but I'll offer these comments:
1. I highly doubt that the decision to appeal is in REI's control. It is more likely in the control of REI's product liability insurance carrier. The policy likely provides that the carrier (who is ultimately on the hook to pay) controls all decisions re settlement and litigation. I've never heard of a PL policy that gives control over such matters to the insured. Such a rare provision might exist in some rare policy, but I've never seen one nor have I heard of one. So, I will assume that REI has no control over the decision to appeal.
So it would seem that your legal *opinion* is rather worthless, which means that any other opinions that you have on any other technical matters are worth about as much.......
Frog-e is correct. Many manufacturers settle out of court to avoid setting legal precedent. But its clear they are responsible under Wash product liability law. Also in the recall notice they estimate only 260 units being effected, and most of them were probably taken care of in the recall. So precedent won't be a major concern.
The speculation about REI's attorney controlling the decisions is just speculation, and it's very speculative now that its established that REI's regular law firm is handling the case.
REI may not even have insurance coverage for this case. They did not think things through in setting up the Novara brand and taking credit for "making" the bikes on their web site--they have removed this from their web site. If they didn't get proper insurance coverage either, that shouldn't come as a shock.
I've emailed REI and asked if an insurance company is making the decisions. If will post their answer.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:36pm PT
|
This was the best thing I've read:
Now can someone highlight actual facts of this case?
Because all I have read is that REI this and REI that and they didnt help the poor girl, blah blah blah
You guys are asking us to not buy from REI because a girl fell on her face while riding a bike? A girl who is now dead because she fell off a cornice?
I read that somebody wants to even blame her falling off a cornice on REI.
It was one of the most ignorant posts on this thread and completely mischaracterizes the OP's argument. Also, there have been plenty of facts posted by people on both sides, including a link to the court decision.
If you don't realize this, it's not even worth discussing this with you.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2011 - 04:37pm PT
|
Riley, do you know what a hyperlink is?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:43pm PT
|
REI may not even have insurance coverage for this case. They did not think things through in setting up the Novara brand and taking credit for "making" the bikes on their web site--they have removed this from their web site. If they didn't get proper insurance coverage either, that shouldn't come as a shock.
I've emailed REI and asked if an insurance company is making the decisions. If will post their answer
WRT the first paragraph, who is speculating now, and without even the benefit of a legal license?
WRT the second, you are really a piece of sh*t. You ALREADY KNOW that they will not be commenting on an ongoing legal matter.
You are simply trying to throw gasoline onto the flame, as much as possible. You could not CARE LESS about any facts, any issues of law.
Crawl back under your rock.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
|
Preface: I don't do litigation, or that sort of law.
They've done studies of medical negligence cases. Often at the start, the patient more than anything wants only sympathy, an apology, whatever treatment might help, and reimbursement for expenses. Once you get lawyers involved, whether they're your own or an insurance company's, most of that isn't possible - it may be construed as an admission of liability. Which in turn may lead to what it is intended to prevent, a lawsuit.
So whether the law firm mentioned is directly retained by REI, or simply the 'usual' firm retained by REI's insurers to defend it, may be moot. Once it's gone legal, it in effect freezes things until the case is heard or settled. And "gone legal" is as soon as the prospective defendant notifies its insurer or lawyer that there may be a claim. At that point, the defendant may simply have to do what it's told.
Mighty, I think it may have been in a thread on this in another forum, but an American lawyer was explaining that most states do have evidentiary rules that makes it possible for the company to help out without fear of it being used as evidence of liability. Maybe its different in Canada?
Monika's friends say that REI was very unhelpful right from the start, refusing to help out or even have an analysis done of the failed fork. They should have have helped out right away and taken the fork and had an analysis done by a firm they retained and at their cost.
In this case, REI is a fairly large and sophisticated corporation, and it sounds like the lawyer may be REI's own, not that of an insurance company. That might give it a bit more flexibility. If the lawyer is retained ('instructed') by an insurance company, that's who calls the shots. If you don't do what your (the insurance company's) lawyer tells you, you may not be covered.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
|
It was one of the most ignorant posts on this thread and completely mischaracterizes the OP's argument. Also, there have been plenty of facts posted by people on both sides, including a link to the court decision.
If you don't realize this, it's not even worth discussing this with you.
GC, your biggest problem is that you confuse the concept of facts with opinions. You think that if you post something, and someone agrees with it, it is a *confirmed fact*. It is not.
Opinions are fine. But they are only that.
The FACT that you attack someone who asks for facts, by characterizing their request as "one of the most ignorant posts on this thread and completely mischaracterizes the OP's argument", seems to be an attempt to steer people away from talking about facts.
Note that an *argument* is ALSO NOT a *fact*!!
Actually, you have no interest in "facts":
there have been plenty of facts posted by people on both sides
What does that mean? We don't need to talk about facts anymore? We don't need any more facts? Facts shouldn't be the basis of discussion?
I get REALLY suspicious when people DONT want to talk about the facts.....when they want to divert people from the FACTS.
What is your agenda?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!