Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 09:46pm PT
|
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.
See, this is where I start to have trouble: Presumably. I am not interested in presuming things. I'd like to see the testimony of the expert, or at least the decision of the court, (NOT APPEALS!), where they should lay it all out.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 09:54pm 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."
GC, you are really determined to win people to your side, aren't you?
You have someone "jump in after 200 posts"
(here is where you start manufacturing facts)
blames everything on the innocent victim. and Ken M. found that the "best thing he ever read.
No, that is where I praised her asking for facts. Is your argument so weak that you have to lie? Here is my post:
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.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 10:35pm PT
|
I have repeatedly asked for the ORIGINAL court opinion, NOT the APPEALS opinion, which you repeatly put up in it's place.
Huh? I only posted the Wash Court of Appeals opinion once and not in response to your petulant "demands." I posted it for people who hadn't bothered to read it and coudn't be bothered to follow the link, while simultaneously accusing everyone else of not having any facts. The link had been posted earlier by someone else before you joined the thread, but you didn't read that. Again lack of attention to detail.
I've noticed that you spew a lot vitriol, make accusations you can't substantiate and don't contribute anything of value. Why can't you find anything useful to post? Why are you just acting like a helpless baby stamping your feet and demanding things. I've already posted the Wash Court of Appeals and links to both appellate briefs? What have you contributed? You haven't brought anything to the table but hatred and irrational ranting.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 10:39pm PT
|
Not talking about what you "think," Riley, as I'm not at all clear that that is happening at all. I'm only talking about what you WROTE and how insane and offensive THAT was.
Regarding facts, that's exactly what I supplied. You didn't catch them, though, because you seem to live in some alternate universe where "personal responsibility" means something like rising above causal chains in Godlike fashion.
Here's two FACTS for ya, "bra." One: Monica suffered severe injuries as a direct result of manufacturing defect. Two: in the REAL WORLD we hold said manufacturer responsible for such defects, NOT the victim of such defects.
Chew on those FACTS for awhile and see if a light bulb doesn't come on somewhere in the murk for ya "bra!"
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 10:40pm PT
|
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."
In support I posted Ken M.'s entire message so everything would be in context and the accuracy of this would be self-evident.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 11:29pm PT
|
mad bolter is an utter loon and religious fanatic incapable of rational thought or self examination
Book author, professor of philosophy at a respected college. I've always found his posts to be very rational and intelligent, even when I don't agree with him.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 12:22am PT
|
Huh? I only posted the Wash Court of Appeals opinion once and not in response to your petulant "demands." I posted it for people who hadn't bothered to read it and coudn't be bothered to follow the link, while simultaneously accusing everyone else of not having any facts. The link had been posted earlier by someone else before you joined the thread, but you didn't read that. Again lack of attention to detail.
Is it Graniteclimber, or GraniteBrain? I read every post in this thread, and followed the links to the Appeal, and read every word. I don't need you re-referring me to it, nor posting it. Is that clear? what detail in what I've just written is unclear to you?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 12:34am PT
|
I've noticed that you spew a lot vitriol, make accusations you can't substantiate and don't contribute anything of value. Why can't you find anything useful to post? Why are you just acting like a helpless baby stamping your feet and demanding things. I've already posted the Wash Court of Appeals and links to both appellate briefs? What have you contributed? You haven't brought anything to the table but hatred and irrational ranting.
Well, pardon me for questioning your perfectionness.
However, you are apparently advocating the climbing community take action, based upon what you are posting. I personally find that information wanting, in terms of your assertions.
I also don't know your motives. I've asked for you to disclose your relationship to the case, and you've responded with rude remarks, and cautions others to not respond, also.....while at the same time I was challenged, and did respond.
You appear to be involved in trying to exaggerate an unfortunate situation, and take advantage of a person's death. That is the appearance, I don't know the truth.
Let's just have some transparency and openness, and perhaps I'll be on your side, as well.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 12:34am PT
|
It is easy to hate big companies and feel bad for hurt people but the reality is often far more complex.
You're starting to sing a bit different tune now, old boy. Finally you are starting to talk about this a bit like an actual tort case, instead of your previous septic-tank-fill: "Her fault she fell on her own face instead of doing a cool shoulder roll."
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 12:57am PT
|
My earlier post:
Ken M.:
I have repeatedly asked for the ORIGINAL court opinion, NOT the APPEALS opinion, which you repeatly put up in it's place.
Huh? I only posted the Wash Court of Appeals opinion once and not in response to your petulant "demands." I posted it for people who hadn't bothered to read it and coudn't be bothered to follow the link, while simultaneously accusing everyone else of not having any facts. The link had been posted earlier by someone else before you joined the thread, but you didn't read that. Again lack of attention to detail.
I've noticed that you spew a lot vitriol, make accusations you can't substantiate and don't contribute anything of value. Why can't you find anything useful to post? Why are you just acting like a helpless baby stamping your feet and demanding things. I've already posted the Wash Court of Appeals and links to both appellate briefs? What have you contributed? You haven't brought anything to the table but hatred and irrational ranting
To this post, Ken M. responds:
Is it Graniteclimber, or GraniteBrain? I read every post in this thread, and followed the links to the Appeal, and read every word. I don't need you re-referring me to it, nor posting it. Is that clear? what detail in what I've just written is unclear to you?
I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I'd posted the Court of Appeal opinion ONCE and not repeatedly like you accused me of doing. (And you claim you read every post?)
Also, I thought I made it pretty clear that the Court of Appeals opinion was not posted in response to your "demands." I had Riley more in mind as being able to benefit from it.
I have to say that Riley started out with one of the most ignorant and callous posts that I"ve seen on this thread, but he's been learning and thinking and his post quality is improving. I don't agree with him, but at least he's starting to make a contribution. On the other hand, your posts just went from low to lower.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 01:09am PT
|
Let's just have some transparency and openness, and perhaps I'll be on your side, as well.
What I've noticed about you, Ken M. is that you are willing to ignore the facts and arguments, tear into the victim and her friends just to score points against someone you are carrying out a vendetta against. I believe that you really don't care about the facts--it's just about tearing people down you are angry at. I already posted who I was earlier. You can confirm with Klimmer if you do not believe me.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 01:24am PT
|
Wow. I thought the drama-queen repetitiveness of polititard threads was over the top.
I stand corrected.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 01:57am PT
|
I believe that you really don't care about the facts--it's just about tearing people down you are angry at. I already posted who I was earlier. You can confirm with Klimmer if you do not believe me
Third time. I am NOT asking who you are. I could not care less who you are. I am asking what your relationship to this case is. Just like I was asked about, and responded.
That would be a fact that I am caring about.
|
|
John_Box
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 03:00am PT
|
I don't really even want to post in this thread but here goes. Remember you are talking about a person that was involved in the PacNW ski community and that what you are writing may be read by some very close friends/family of hers. It's just the internet, don't be afraid to be "wrong" and step away from the thread and let the argument die.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 03:08am PT
|
I am asking what your relationship to this case is.
Asked and answered. (Caught you! You haven't read every post on this thread like you claimed! I'll bet you missed my post where I described my attitude towards REI also.)
Locker even posted my picture.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 03:21am PT
|
The appellate briefs are interesting. Read both REI's and Monika's.
I would love to read the discovery materials, the submissions to the trial court judge and the trial court's opinion. From what's in the appellate briefs, it sure sounds like REI's lawyers really screwed the pooch at the trial court level. How did it come to pass that REI found itself trying to defend itself without it's own analysis of the failed fork!? But it's just speculation without seeing the trial court materials.
Bike was bought in 2002
The first required an entirely new frame and the fork in 2005
REI's lawyers harp on this, but it's not that relevant since it was the fork that failed. She got a brand new fork in 2005 and that was the fork that failed. So while the bike may have suffered wear and tear (including the accident necessitating the new fork), none of that affected the fork. She got it July 2005 and it failed November 2007.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 11:08am PT
|
If justice is what was wanted I do not know why the bike manufacturer or the part maker was not listed in the law suit. I think she probably ended up very pissed at REI.
Well REI was the "bike manufacturer" as most people would use that term--it was sold under REI's trademark. I know that my Toyota contains parts made by many different companies, but Toyota is the "manufacturer" of the vehicle from my perspective.
As to why the plaintiff didn't sue the Taiwanese company that made the fork--my guess is that there was no jurisdiction over that company in Washington (or anywhere in the US), or even if there was jurisdiction, suing and then collecting against a foreign defendant can be difficult or impossible. I have no idea what laws in Taiwan may apply, but good luck bringing that suit.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 11:50am PT
|
Riley, your recent points are much appreciated! It seems to me that those sorts of points and questions are really productive.
I, too, think that the apparent failure rate we're seeing with these forks is abominable. And, yes, how would somebody go after the "manufacturer" if it's not the branding/selling company here in the USA?
Points about Toyota as "manufacturer" also well taken.
My "take" so far is that, regardless of what all the material facts might turn out to be, REI did not handle this well even from a PR perspective! As a manufacturer/distributor, what you want to do in a case like this is tell the injured party: "Without any admission of culpability in this matter, just as a 'good-natured' company, we want to step up and help you get to the facts. Let's start by paying for TWO forensic analyses: one by 'your guy' and one by 'our guy.' Let's see what turns up there. And meanwhile, here's a significant chunk of change to help with your medical bills until we can sort this out. And please accept our sincerest sympathy for your injuries!"
Naive, I know, in our present litigious society. But, seriously, this sort of approach is how I run my company, and I hope we don't lose some of our basic principles as we grow and become more of a "target."
I'd be curious to know how often REI has been sued over product liability issues during the course of its history. I would guess not very often. Recreational gear is amazingly reliable in general.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 06:07pm PT
|
But if REI sells Omega link cams that fail is REI liable? Same thing goes for Walmart selling some bad Chinese product or a bad Good Year tire product.
Or is it just the fact that REI had the REI name on the box? Did they in fact? I'm confused about that?
To me this is the KEY point. If REI sells Omega link cams that fail, REI should not be liable, Omega should. Same with Walmart selling a bad Good Year product. No argument from me there.
But Novarra is an REI brand.
Go to google right now and search for "novara rei" but without the quotation marks. Your first result will be this:
Novara bikes for road, mountain and commuting, plus cycling - REI.com
REI makes top-rated Novara bikes for all types of cycling including mountain, road, touring and commuting, plus bikes for designed for women and kids.
http://www.rei.com/brand/Novara - Cached - Similar
Or just click here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=novara+rei
I find the Toyota analogy persuasive. If you buy a Toyota and then a wheel falls off, should you be able to go after Toyota? What if Toyota tells you that they are not responsible because the bolts that broke were sub-contracted to some firm in Vietnam - should you still be able to go after Toyota, or should start looking on the Net for Vietnamese law firms and hope that you will be able to successfully sue them?
|
|
Ain't no flatlander
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2011 - 07:01pm PT
|
So the take away from all this: people who abuse bikes shouldn't buy cheap carbon fiber. Multiple crashes after the frame and fork were replaced is the real issue. Not manufacturing defects. Blaming the "evil corporation" is a nice sentiment but really doesn't improve safety or help anyone but greedy lawyers.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!