REI shirks responsibility & appeals Monika Johnson case

Granite- that is interesting.
I had read a back tire...
And read other arguments to to effect..

Mitchell further suggested that a 2006 collision involving the bicycle, in which the rear wheel was damaged, could have contributed to the fork’s fracture. He opined that “if an element of that crash involved the front fork without creating visible damage, then it could be considered an initiating event for the fracture that serves as the basis for this law suit.” CP at 17

By any chance, R Wyna/gc/M Peasant/et. al., are you one of those former REI employees who left the company under unfortunate or embarassing circumstances?

I don't understand why you guys seem to be blowing off the report that Monika paid for. The one that said there was insufficient glue and layers of carbon fiber.

Johnson purchased the fork over two years before the accident.
During that time, the bicycle was struck in traffic by a moving car. As
Mitchell testified by declaration, this case involves "a bicycle that had
been subjected to substantial use and abuse. It was clearly a high mileage
vehicle displaying substantial wear and tear[.]" (CP 176.) The bicycle
"exhibited significant wear and lack of maintenance." (Id.) At the time
the trial court decided the causation issue as a matter of law, there was
"insufficient information to rule out the accumulation of prior damage to
the front fork as the cause of the ultimate fork separation." (CP 178.)
Under these circumstances, the trier of fact should have been permitted to
weigh the conflicting evidence and decide how an ordinary consumer
would expect a carbon fiber fork to perform after it had been subjected to
heavy use and abuse for more than two years, including a traffic accident
in which it was struck by a moving car. Taking that issue away from the
jury was clear error.

For whatever reason, REI didn't do the discovery it should have soon enough, and the trial court granted summary judgment on liability in the plaintiff's favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the case may or may not be heard by the Washington Supreme Court. Denial of a continuance to obtain additional discovery is in the discretion of the trial court, and REI has a very difficult road to travel on appeal.

REI additionally contends that the trial court erred by denying REI’s request to conduct additional discovery prior to the summary judgment ruling. Because discretionary review was not granted on this issue, we will not reach it. City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 156 Wn. App. 531, 538 n.2, 234 P.3d 264 (2010) (noting that, pursuant to RAP 2.3(e), the appellate court may specify the issue or issues as to which discretionary review is granted), review granted, No. 84907-2
(Wash. Nov. 3, 2010).

(by not shopping at REI.)

And just because you are only watching doesn't mean you aren't a perv also.

here are really two cases going on here. One is a complicated legal case involving outsourced manufacturing, insurance companies, etc. REI will probably lose. They will pay compensation as required by law, and justice will be served, as best it can be by financial compensation in these situations.

The other "trial" going on here is one that the OP is attempting to manufacture by trying REI in the court of public opinion. Like I said earlier: The OP accuses REI of being an unethical organization, gives one side of the evidence, issues the verdict, and expects all of us to carry out the sentence (by not shopping at REI.) I don't think this is an appropriate way to present this situation.

As a juror in the court of public opinion - we all get to decide in this court

Hi, I've read a lot about REI's litigation with Monika Johnson.

Is REI in control of its own defense of this, or is an insurance company in the driver's seat?

Thanks!

Monika Johnson was highly regarded in the outdoor community, a member of the REI community, and a dear friend of many REI employees. Please know that we have expressed our condolences to Monika's family.

The issues addressed in any lawsuit are often complex and sometimes, as is the case here, have broad impacts beyond just the parties. I’d like to stress that REI's appeal is not about the amount of money Monika's estate should receive through either a trial or a settlement. Instead, it is about the degree to which responsibility should be shared between a private label seller, like REI, and the manufacturer who designed and made the bike component. REI would have preferred to resolve Monika’s case early on, but circumstances beyond our control made this impossible.

As we have since REI was founded in 1938, we stand behind our products, and we are committed to acting in accordance with the co-op’s values. We have kept those values front and center throughout this case, and we will continue to do so through final resolution. I can assure you that REI will do the right thing.

"REI would have preferred to resolve Monika’s case early on, but circumstances beyond our control made this impossible."

That means an unreasonable demand from the unreasonable lawyers representing plaintiff. Remember, this aint about Monika. The plaintiffs are uually irrelevant once the lawyers get involved.

Also, good lawyers represent their clients. Even when he or she has a good case, ironically, that plaintiff can present the biggest obstacle to resolution--unrealistic expectations, failing to respond to requests for information, changing their version of the events, saying completely different things at depo and trial than what they've consistently said sitting in your office, etc. While some plaintiffs are deserving of your sympathy, it's important to remember that they went to a lawyer because they wanted MONEY.

That means an unreasonable demand from the unreasonable lawyers representing plaintiff. Remember, this aint about Monika. The plaintiffs are uually irrelevant once the lawyers get involved.