REI shirks responsibility & appeals Monika Johnson case

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41 - 60 of total 452 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
May 19, 2011 - 11:01am PT
Another thread: http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991033&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=906d4d334702f7fbb6cf984322bb72e5
reddirt

climber
PNW
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 11:01am PT
REI's product liability representation exists at the behest of REI, not the other way around.

Mine is a simplistic view but if an entity is going to reap the rewards of a product that is their brand, they must also own up the the liabilities of their brand.

This would be way different if it were Trek or Cannondale (or BD for that matter) equipment purchased from REI that malfunctioned. In which case I would imagine Trek, C'dale, BD would be on the hook.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
May 19, 2011 - 11:04am PT
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014151086_skier07m.html?prmid=related_stories_section

Monika Johnson, experienced mountaineer, killed near Snoqualmie Pass


By Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times staff reporter


Monika Johnson
Monika Johnson, who died last week on a mountain peak near Snoqualmie Pass when a shelf of snow broke off beneath her feet, was not only an awesome backcountry skier and mountaineer, friends and family said, she was a generous, thoughtful friend and co-worker.

Ms. Johnson, 40, was killed when a cornice broke off on Red Mountain, dropping her hundreds of feet and burying her in snow.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 19, 2011 - 11:05am PT
Those who blame REI need to read Mighty Hiker's posts again. In most states, the seller of a defective product is liable jointly and severally with the manufacturer, for any defective merchandise, regardless of whether or not the seller was negligent. For that reason, most sellers, including REI, do the responsible thing and buy insurance.

I'm unaware of any insurance contract that allows the insured to force the insurance company to settle for a specific sum. Instead, if the injured party makes a settlement offer within policy limits, the insured can instruct the insurance company to settle. If the insurance company fails to do so, it is legally on the hook for all damages ultimately awarded, regardless of whether the damages exceed policy limits.

The only exception of which I am aware are certain professional errors and omissions (i.e. malpractice) policies, that allow the insured to prevent the insurance company from settling. Again, I know of no policy where the insured can force the insurance company to settle.

Thus, those blaming the insurance company are on target. While I have plenty of issues with REI, which is rapidly becoming a supplier I love to hate (despite being a member since 1967 or '68), I don't think REI could do too much here.

John
Rokjox

Trad climber
Boys I'dunno
May 19, 2011 - 11:08am PT
REI is NOT A CO-OP.

It hasn't been for several DECADES.


Why would anybody think they were? Because they SAY they are? They also say their board is elected. Yet none of the positions ever have a challenger. Or ALMOST never, I think I saw one ONCE, likely to keep the fake image in place for the lawyers and the regulators.

That is a tax scam if anything.


REI hasn't been a Co-op since the original owners sold out.







People are stupid, but I never thought they were THAT stupid. REI is a mega corporation. Has EVERYBODY forgotten what REAL co-ops were like? REI is a Capitalistic ripoff of the term and the image. They show NONE of the real characteristics of a REAL co-op. Just that fakey refund that is built into the image that can ONLY be used to buy MORE REI products... Look at the price tags, they code the "dividend" into the price.

Port

Trad climber
San Diego
May 19, 2011 - 11:10am PT
Tha is a tax scam if anything.


It's a marketing scam. And I totally agree.
reddirt

climber
PNW
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 11:13am PT
If the fork was another company's other than REI (Novara), then that company should be liable....

liable for all physical damages, including head trauma, which may have contributed to her ultimate passing.

edit to add "Novara", an REI house brand.
atchafalaya

Boulder climber
May 19, 2011 - 11:13am PT
Rox, are you saying that REI is not a COOP?
reddirt

climber
PNW
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 11:15am PT
atchafalaya, ROX, the point of this thread is not the co-opiness of REI. It is their LIABILITY for selling their own defective product. Plenty of other threads to take that convo to.

John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
May 19, 2011 - 11:16am PT
John, I prefer to agree with what Reddirt posted.

REI's product liability representation exists at the behest of REI, not the other way around.

Just because no such insurance exists at this time, doesn't mean that it can't. It might cost more to have some say in what happens, but thems the breaks when you put your name on something.

Maybe REI should announce that they are seeking a more responsive insurer.
Mangy Peasant

Social climber
Riverside, CA
May 19, 2011 - 11:17am PT
REI is NOT A CO-OP.

So what is it then?

A public corporation? Nope.

A privately owned corporation? If so, then who owns the assets?

Are the profits distributed to anyone other than the co-op members?

Perhaps their management is overpaid...I don't know. If their compensation is extreme, that would be fraud. Even so, it still doesn't change the definition of their corporate structure.

The reason the board never changes is because, beyond the occasional fleeting internet outrage, no one ever really cares enough to run and/or vote.

Gene

climber
May 19, 2011 - 11:18am PT
If the fork was another company's other than REI, then that company should be liable....

The appeals court appears to disagree.
Thus, by imposing liability on sellers of branded products for manufacturing defects—which, inevitably, are caused by acts of the manufacturer—our legislature created a statutory form of vicarious liability that enables the claimant injured by a defectively manufactured product to recover fully from the product seller where the seller branded the product as its own.
locker

Social climber
CO
May 19, 2011 - 11:20am PT


There MUST be STANDARDS for manufacturing the bikes etc...

You can bet that REI would INSIST on those standards being met...

IF they weren't and someone is injured as a result...

why shouldn't the manufacturer be held responsible???...





I only ask out of ignorance NOT to argue with anyone...
reddirt

climber
PNW
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 11:22am PT
Locker: because "the seller branded the product as its own"
locker

Social climber
CO
May 19, 2011 - 11:26am PT

reddirt...

I KEEP seeing that posted...

Still not buying into it fully however...

It seems MORE complicated than that...





EDITED:

What would be interesting to me is to see how many of those that are posting against REI here, were ALREADY against REI in the first place...

Mangy Peasant

Social climber
Riverside, CA
May 19, 2011 - 11:28am PT
atchafalaya, ROX, the point of this thread is not the co-opiness of REI. It is their LIABILITY for selling their own defective product. Plenty of other threads to take that convo to.

The courts have already determined liability. We can agree or disagree with the courts but, unless anyone here is lawyer specializing Oregon product liability, we are just arguing from the perspective of our personal ignorance of the law.

Of course there is always the court of public opinion, which is what this thread is really about. And the perceptions of the co-opiness, and the size of the stores, and the nature of the products, etc. have a big influence on how people personally judge this situation.

Tell the same story and with the same facts, but change the name of the company, and you might get a very different set of opinions.


reddirt

climber
PNW
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2011 - 11:29am PT
Gene: "If the fork was another company's other than REI, then that company should be liable...."

I meant if it were a non-Novara brand fork on a non-Novara brand bike... even if purchased from REI... then that non-Novara brand would/should/could be liable & REI is merely a conduit, not the owner of that brand.
Gene

climber
May 19, 2011 - 11:30am PT
Reddirt,

Gotcha!

g
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
May 19, 2011 - 11:35am PT
Thus, those blaming the insurance company are on target. While I have plenty of issues with REI, which is rapidly becoming a supplier I love to hate (despite being a member since 1967 or '68), I don't think REI could do too much here.

John, even assuming that you (and others) are correct in assuming that REI's hands are tied with regard to the insurance company's decision to appeal, I disagree with your last comment.

While REI may not have been able to prevent its insurer from acting as it did, REI certainly could have done many things to show that it actually cared. If it could not legally pay the woman's medical bills, it could have started, or backed, some kind of campaign to help her. Or taken any number of other steps to show that it understood the difference between legal and moral obligations.

By hiding behind its insurance contract it has made a very public statement that it doesn't give a sh#t about what happened to Monika Johnson. Something which could just as easily have happened to your daughter, btw.

I'm no REI hater, but this is not right.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
May 19, 2011 - 11:41am PT
A privately owned corporation? If so, then who owns the assets?

Are the profits distributed to anyone other than the co-op members?


If it were a true COOP, there would be a true profit sharing program. It would come in the form of a dividend. What REI has cleverly done is to call their "profit sharing program" a "dividend." BUT it's neither. The "dividend" is based ONLY on what YOU bought, not the profits in total. In a true COOP, members share in profits and income is reinvested, or issued in a dividend depending on the goals of the organization. They may even choose to cut prices. In reality, REI does not distribute profits. Unless you consider 10 percent to be "profit sharing". It sounds more like a marketing budget to me.


My understanding is that REI uses the "member fees", the initial $20, to expand the company as rapidly as possible. The 10 percent you get back, is really not that much considering that prices at REI are high is comparison to online retail and other shops.
Messages 41 - 60 of total 452 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews