Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:10pm PT
|
Its clear to me why he posted the whole thing. He posted a link earlier, but based on questions that have been asked, it appears that few read the link.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:14pm PT
|
Sh#t happens girl- it is dangerous stuff we play with- if you get the chop it is just part of the game. You don't like it then take up chess and don't climb. There are many dangers we assume and if you don't get that then you shouldn't be climbing.
If I get the chop it is my fault!
Riley, this is just crap. The girl was riding on city streets doing less then 5 miles an hour. Her fork broke, not because of anything she did, but because of poor manufacturing. If a piece of equipment you used broke in a manner it shouldn't have and caused you serious injury, and you discovered through expensive tests that it was poorly manufactured, would you just say.. oh well, its dangerous stuff we do.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:15pm PT
|
John, I know it's asking a lot, but could you be less vague. I don't really want to go back and read the whole thread, trying to find the specific link you mean, then reading another whole thread or whatever.....
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:19pm PT
|
Riley, this is just crap. The girl was riding on city streets doing less then 5 miles an hour. Her fork broke, not because of anything she did, but because of poor manufacturing. If a piece of equipment you used broke in a manner it shouldn't have and caused you serious injury, and you discovered through expensive tests that it was poorly manufactured, would you just say.. oh well, its dangerous stuff we do.
I agree with this, pretty much, accepting the assumptions.
The scenario makes no sense to me, but I'm not really interested in trying to parse that at this point. Presumably that was done in the trial that we aren't supposed to see.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:26pm PT
|
Take a few breaths everyone....
I will if you will.
By the way.. your communicate hasn't been the clearest today. Its also been full of the attacks that you have complained about. Just saying bro.. might want to rewind yourself.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:31pm PT
|
GC, that is the APPEALS decision you have copied. You can tell, by the word APPEALS in the first page.
No kidding. I've never seen someone supporting a thread spam it before with a super-long post.
No kidding its an "APPEALS decision" That's why everyone has been calling it the "Court of Appeals decision." This has been discussed fairly extensively. How many times do you have to hear "Court of Appeals" before you figue out its what you call an "APPEALS decision."
You accuse people of not posting facts and not posting links, but you don't read posts or links.
I'd already posted a cut and paste excerpt showing the court, parties, and their respective legal counsel. An online version was already linked to by one of the lawyers.
But it was not until I reposted it that you finally got it that it's a Court of Appeals decision. And then two posts later you call it "spam". That is after you all but accuse of "hiding" facts presented in the opinion.
The reason I had to post it was for people like you and Riley.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:31pm PT
|
The point is that two courts have already sided against REI & they are choosing to draw this out.
Reminds me of another case.
Brown shirks responsibility & appeals Board of Education case
The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had upheld a state law requiring "separate but equal" segregated facilities for blacks and whites in railway cars.[15] The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricular, and educational qualifications of teachers.
They lost the appeal...but still continued to drag it out...
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2011 - 07:39pm PT
|
Riley, if you go back & read what you wrote & when you wrote it, paying attn to chronology, you will see that you wrote things that can be construed as extremely callous & not factual before you read the facts... and then proceeded to post excerpts out of context.
I suspect that the key is in the sentence 1st engineer that the fork was sent to: "He found that the section of the fork where the fracture occurred “was manufactured using a relatively small number of [carbon fiber] layers.”"
Even in light of the defendant's engineer (rear wheel blah blah, even in light that this is a carbon frame), this suggests poor manufacturing, thus potentially poor due diligence on REI's behalf thus REI's responsibility for the failure.
2 courts seem to see it this way. REI chooses to string it out to a 3rd.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:45pm PT
|
Common sense is the fork is loose
It wasn't "loose." It broke suddenly and catastrophically. It was to all appearances fine one second and the next second it was broken and Monika was on the sidewalk.
Ms. Johnson never noticed anything amiss or out of the ordinary with respect to the Fork before the accident. (CP 57.) She did not notice any cracks, dings or irregularity in shape. (ld.) From her perspective, the Fork looked completely normal and just the same as a front fork on any other road bicycle. (Id.) Similarly, she did not notice any flaws or irregularity with the performance of the Fork when she rode. (Id.) Ms. Johnson's bicycle did not exhibit any outward signs of damage or defect prior to the November 19,2007 accident. (Id.)
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2011 - 07:45pm PT
|
At what point do you have a pesonal responsiblity to look at your bike?
she had the fork looked at & replaced by REI before the accident.
Even after the accident, REI had her to pay 10K for engineering tests, presumably electron microscopy & such. Perhaps REI thought she'd not fight it & walk away given the cost, a tactic (force petitioner to do time/$consuming work up front) used by, ironically insurance companies.
It came back to bite them in the a$$. They could have chosen an easier route for themselves by backing up their product like they said they would. REI lost. REI chose to apppeal. REI lost again. REI appeals again. Yes it's w/in their right but it sure as hell isn't the right thing to do, business-wise nor morally.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:49pm PT
|
you wrote things that can be construed as extremely callous & not factual before you read the facts... and then proceeded to post excerpts out of context.
Riley jumped in after 200 posts and without reading anything claimed that there were no facts, blamed everything on the innocent victim. And Ken M. found that the "best thing he ever read."
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 07:53pm PT
|
your communicate hasn't been the clearest today
?????
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 08:01pm PT
|
REI sells so much stuff, like any retailer, it is hard to imagine a system where they could check for manufacturing defects on all their products.
It seems to me the fork manufacturer should be sued and not REI.
|
|
Rankin
Social climber
Greensboro, North Carolina
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 08:09pm PT
|
This is turning into a WEIRD thread...
Hahahahahaha. Locker, I think it's been there for awhile. I checked in for the first time in a few days and was shocked to see people still kicking the ball around. Hell, I read the court's opinion because I think it's interesting...but c'mon people. Get a room!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 08:10pm PT
|
The problem is you folks can not juggle more then one thought at a time.
Read instead of reacting angrily.
I thought you said you were going to chill out. This isn't chilling out. And the "you" part is offensive because no one knows who you are talking about. So man up and point specifically to whom you mean. I'm tired of guessing.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 08:16pm PT
|
why repost w/o posting the extensive preceeding paragraph.... and upstream where it states, "In 2005, she had taken the bicycle to REI for repairs following a collision with a car door. The Novara carbon fiber fork that fractured in November 2007 was installed on the bicycle during those 2005 repairs."
No one is disputing that the fork came from REI or that the expert hired by the defense claims that there is was a manufacturing defect.
I don't think anyone here even disputes that claim the fork was a piece of sh#t.
More importantly, no one is disputing that Monika should be reimbursed for the accident. Not even REI.
The question is: whether REI should pay, of the bike manufacturer?
I don't don't see any facts that support the idea REI thinks that she shouldn't get squat from anyone. REI is only arguing that the manufacturer should cut the check, not REI.
As long as she is compensated by the responsible party, then there is justice.
Who is the responsible party? I don't care. I'm not interested enough in product liability law to follow the details. The court will decide.
REI is not arguing that an injured person should not be compensated, they are arguing that the injury should not be compensated with REI's money. They are not trying to deny Monika justice. REI is trying to prevent what they perceive as an injustice against them.
Think about this: If REI pays, then the bike manufacturer (the people who clearly made a few extra bucks by skimping on the materials) won't have to pay.
Is that fair? Is that the "correct" outcome?
Ultimately, what is being disputed in this thread [edit] is the claim that this incident demonstrates that REI engages in unethical business practices.
There's way too much going on here to come to that conclusion based on one story.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 08:25pm PT
|
Hahahahahaha. Locker, I think it's been there for awhile. I checked in for the first time in a few days and was shocked to see people still kicking the ball around. Hell, I read the court's opinion because I think it's interesting...but c'mon people. Get a room!
Dude, it's the internet.
It's ST...the home of the "Republicans" thread.
And just because you are only watching doesn't mean you aren't a perv also.
And I'm stuck in an airport...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 09:42pm PT
|
But it was not until I reposted it that you finally got it that it's a Court of Appeals decision. And then two posts later you call it "spam". That is after you all but accuse of "hiding" facts presented in the opinion.
GC, I have read the opinion, and quoted the APPEALS opinion. I have repeatedly asked for the ORIGINAL court opinion, NOT the APPEALS opinion, which you repeatly put up in it's place.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!