REI appeals Monika's case

REI has just stated what is so sickening and shameful about its treatment of Monika.

If REI wishes to address the degree to which responsibility should be shared between a private label seller and the manufacturer who designed the flawed bike component, it should by all means go ahead and do so. Yet to do so at the expense of Monika's well being is deeply disheartening. Granted, the point is somewhat moot now because of Monika's accident, but making her family deal with it is only slightly less disheartening.

REI made a mistake when it signed an incomplete and poorly thought out contract with Fairly Bike Manufacturing company. Monika's accident has revealed the limitations of that contract. Now REI claims, as Steve has suggested, that "circumstances beyond its control" have rendered it powerless to resolve Monika's issue.

Bullshit. REI has the power to end litigation involving Monika('s family) at any time. It has always had this power. It would be costly, no doubt, but as I said in an earlier post, the cost to REI would be no more difficult to manage than what Monika had to endure on account of her accident. REI is not powerless by any stretch of the imagination.  

What's more, one of the reasons that REI is even attempting to excuse itself from responsibility is the result of the forensic bike test that revealed a manufacturing defect in the Aprebic fork. Monika paid for the test out of her own pocket without so much as a dime in reimbursement from REI. Think about that, whoever reads this. Monika paid close to 10k out her savings to pay for a test that REI requested, and never received reimbursement. What's 10k to REI? To Monika it meant not being able to fly to Germany for her grandmother's funeral last year.

Libby stated in that mass email she sent to people who voiced concern that REI stands by its products and has been committed to its co-op values throughout its defense. Libby, if you read this, are you aware that REI refused to reimburse Monika for the cost of her bike!?

REI is a hypocritical company, which in my opinion is the worst of the wost.

Pretty much as expected from what Big Steve had to say.

"The right to have a court or jury consider this question is important to all companies, big or small, that sell products under private labels. REI would have preferred to resolve Ms. Johnson’s case early on, but circumstances beyond our control made this impossible."

Would seem to be a conflicting statement except for the explanations that we have had.  In this case it would appear the company most intent on exercising this right is the insurance company.

When a product fails under warranty almost all companies will rectify the situation immediately without protest.  Many companies will also do so if a product is out of warranty but clearly defective.  But if such a product somehow causes damage, then the admission seems to go away....  Clearly money is everything here.

Don't be fooled by BS' or REI's arguments!  They're feeding you the party line typically spouted by corporate defense counsel (e.g., we can't do the right thing, because of an insurance policy).  Think about how absurd that is!  They're saying they can't pay proven damages established at trial, because of the terms of a commercial contract (which is all an insurance policy is).  That argument may have had some relevance before REI's liability was established at least 3 separate times (e.g., on summary judgment, at trial, and on appeal), but not at this stage. REI's probability of success at this point is incredibly small.  By appealing this time, they're electing a tactic intended to limit their liability (by delaying payment and increasing Monika's estate's costs). Their executives could make this all go away if they wanted to, without breaching their obligations to their members.  IMO the response they provided in their form email proves that they have been complicit in their defense strategy all along, and continue to care more about their bottom line than doing the right thing.  

Before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, has anyone considered what Monika or her family would want done in this situation?

I got to climb/ski (chase!) Monika on Mt. Adams, and she didn't seem the type of person that would waste energy on futile or symbolic gestures.

BTW, I think Big Steve is spot on in his analysis of where to direct our efforts and outrage...I can't speak to the business/legal points. Thanks Steve for taking the time to present and clearly articulate your views. Maybe unpopular, but very important.

-Burns

BTW, I think Big Steve is spot on in his analysis of where to direct our efforts and outrage...I can't speak to the business/legal points.  Thanks Steve for taking the time to present and clearly articulate your views.  Maybe unpopular, but very important.

Yes! It's been an education. Thanks to all the legal types weighing in here and especially over at NWHikers.

This is sickening and I as well am angered for our friend's mistreatment - even so much moreso given her passing. But things don't change from an emotional response - only a calculated measured one. Yes, the system needs fixing, and yes, REI participated in the broken liability insurance game in ways they have to - but only economic impact from public shaming will change how REI responds and treats its clients. My calculated measured response to the tremendously insulting response of "valuing our members and standing behind our products" is sorry you have to participate in such a rigged mega-industrial underwriting scheme - but you made your bed, you have to lie in it. To those who are connected - please seek out any ear that may receive your voice which is in a position of media message distribution and get Monika's REI fiasco story out there. They're gonna wish they settled right out of the gate.

It's not a bargin to pay 10% more for an item and wait all year for some B.S. rebate. I'm taking any product of theres I have and am going to R.eturn E.very I.tem . I urge everyone to do the same.    X    R.E.I. customer

e-mail sent to board

email sent.

ryanl, Big Steve, and everyone else thanks for contributing to this discussion.

Although I understand people's emotional response, this string has a certain "lynch mob" feel to it. I tried to explain Monica's case to an attorney friend of mine, which was complicated by my lack of direct knowledge of the case. It wasn't making any sense to him so he was inspired to review the February court ruling. Keeping in mind that he has no knowledge of the situation, other than what is in the court ruling, here's his summary:

"You’ll see that REI was attempting to join the manufacturer as a defendant in Monika’s lawsuit, but the trial court refused to do so, even though the liability claim for a defective product plainly involved a claim that would be a primary claim against the manufacturer and only a vicarious claim (a vicarious claim is where one party is held liable for the wrongful acts of another) against REI. Because the trial court refused to join the manufacturer, REI was going to be stuck in the position that even if it was shown that the manufacturer was totally at fault, REI would not be able to recover anything against the manufacturer. That is the “anomaly” discussed at the end of the opinion. That does seem a somewhat goofy outcome. My guess is that REI decided to make its comparative fault argument because of this. It was in the position that unless it found some creative way to get the manufacturer into the case, it would end up being stuck for the whole tab, even though it perhaps did absolutely nothing wrong and nothing to cause the injury."

I think his judgement reflects the unemotional legal basis for REI's case, which is clearly not the full story. Here's my personal synopsis: The court's decision appears to acknowledge that it's unfair that REI will be prevented from going after the manufacturer but that they have to uphold the laws of the state. One of the judges has actually requested that the legistlature change the law (to no avail). Although it seems unjust that REI hasn't offered any compenstation to Monica, it's also unjust that REI should be prevented from suing the manufacturer. I'm not ready to judge REI to harshly. I think we need to see how this is resolved before calling for a boycott of a company that has a long track record of being a good corporate citizen.

Although I understand people's emotional response, this string has a certain "lynch mob" feel to it.  I tried to explain Monica's case to an attorney friend of mine, which was complicated by my lack of direct knowledge of the case.  It wasn't making any sense to him so he was inspired to review the February court ruling.  Keeping in mind that he has no knowledge of the situation, other than what is in the court ruling, here's his summary:

"You’ll see that REI was attempting to join the manufacturer as a defendant in Monika’s lawsuit, but the trial court refused to do so, even though the liability claim for a defective product plainly involved a claim that would be a primary claim against the manufacturer and only a vicarious claim (a vicarious claim is where one party is held liable for the wrongful acts of another) against REI.  Because the trial court refused to join the manufacturer, REI was going to be stuck in the position that even if it was shown that the manufacturer was totally at fault, REI would not be able to recover anything against the manufacturer.  That is the “anomaly” discussed at the end of the opinion.  That does seem a somewhat goofy outcome.  My guess is that REI decided to make its comparative fault argument because of this.  It was in the position that unless it found some creative way to get the manufacturer into the case, it would end up being stuck for the whole tab, even though it perhaps did absolutely nothing wrong and nothing to cause the injury."

I think his judgement reflects the unemotional legal basis for REI's case, which is clearly not the full story.  Here's my personal synopsis: The court's decision appears to acknowledge that it's unfair that REI will be prevented from going after the manufacturer but that they have to uphold the laws of the state.  One of the judges has actually requested that the legistlature change the law (to no avail).  Although it seems unjust that REI hasn't offered any compenstation to Monica, it's also unjust that REI should be prevented from suing the manufacturer.  I'm not ready to judge REI to harshly. I think we need to see how this is resolved before calling for a boycott of a company that has a long track record of being a good corporate citizen.

The court isn't preventing REI from suing the manufacturer of the fork. The court said that REI couldn't claim Aprebic(fork manufacturer) as a third party defendant in THIS suit. The court said if REI wanted to do so it would have to be another trial. REI did not want to go that route. I read the ruling.

Sometimes lynch mobs are more satisfying, regardless of whether their outrage fairly reflects the reality of a situation. Ask the folks who trashed Starbucks in Seattle a few years ago!

Also, could someone take down that picture of Monika w/ her face all f***ed up. Inappropriate, unecessary and disrespectful to her and her family.

I understand people are grieving, and I'm sorry for that, but this is over the top.

BTW, maybe the current home page w/ the hideous helmet picture could be replaced with a more fitting picture of this beautiful woman, as well.

Although my previous post was intended to pass on a legal opinion regarding REI's case, I'd like to focus on what I think is the fundamental issue: Monica suffered terrible injuries due to a manufacturing defect and she (now her family) should be compensated by the responsible parties. I think REI should assume responsibility, regardless of their ability to obtain compensation from the manufacturer, and I support reasonable efforts to pressure REI to resolve this case in favor of Monica's family.

Although my previous post was intended to pass on a legal opinion regarding REI's case, I'd like to focus on what I think is the fundamental issue: Monica suffered terrible injuries due to a manufacturing defect and she (now her family) should be compensated by the responsible parties.  I think REI should assume responsibility, regardless of their ability to obtain compensation from the manufacturer, and I support reasonable efforts to pressure REI to resolve this case in favor of Monica's family.

Nice backpedal.

Scottk, your attorney friend's take in a bit inaccurate.

First, the Court of Appeals confirmed the trial court's order bifurcating trials, but the trial court did grant leave to REI to implead (i.e., bring in as a third party defendant) Aperbic in the action.  The opinion states, in part:

Although the trial court denied REI’s request to attribute fault to Aprebic, it did grant to REI leave to join Aprebic as a third party defendant. However, the trial court noted that if REI did so, the court would “require separate trials under CR 20(b) to prevent delay and prejudice to [Johnson].” CP at 198.

The C/A affirmed the order bifurcating, but made no ruling on granting leave to implead (which apparently was not assigned as error, nor would there be any reason for REI to have done so.) Thus, REI was indeed free to implead Aperbic.

Second, REI's liability under the WPLA is direct, not vicarious nor imputed.  As a private label seller, REI has the liability of a "manufacturer." 

Third, it's obvious from reading the opinion that REI was attempting to use the comparative fault provisions of RCW 4.22 to make an end run of the private labeler “manufacturer’s” liability under the WPLA by attributing all or most of the fault to Aperbic, thus avoiding or greatly reducing REI's exposure.  See the comments in my first post on this thread. 

With great respect for my friend, Burns, i offer +1 for the photo comments, and a short story about getting things done.  First, no stranger to gentle rants about REI - especially their house branded products, where I am caused to wonder about their R&D budget, engineering expertise, subcontractor oversight, etc., and why 'they' should profit from it - or the lack of it -  there is no question, in this posters mind, that REI is so wrong - perhaps the most wrong I have ever seen them (i have a 5 digit member #) - to have left Monika chasing ghosts in her fair effort for reasonable answers.

A number of years ago, my friend Ron bought a new lawn mower at Pay N Pak.   Once home, he couldn't get the cheap mower to run, so he took it back.  They couldn't get it started either.  Ron wanted his money back, and after a fruitless chat with customer service, the manager, Herb, was called in.  He explained that they would exchange the mower, but that no money could be returned.  The only words out of Rons' mouth were "Wrong answer, Herb".  Ron went to the back of the store, found a large piece of cardboard, came back after grabbing a can of spray paint off the shelf, and walked out the front door, where he made his sign.  He spoke with anyone who'd listen - and some who didn't.  In under 20 minutes, Herb walked out the door, cash in hand, in the exact amount of the mower purchase.

Write your emails, if that's your thing.  It carries weight.  Just, not that much..

Email sent

Any suggestions on what to do with the handful of cash once I return my past 5 yrs of REI purchases?

Thought I would pass this along... I'm sure many of those who emailed REI got a similar if not identical response, but this is what was forwarded to me:



Dear Mr. Turner,



There is more to this situation than meets the eye. Although we understand we cannot tell everyone exactly what they would like to hear right now, I’d like to send you a couple of points.



REI has a long, respected history of standing behind our products and we will do so in this situation, too. What you and others may not realize is that early on in the case, to demonstrate our good faith, we helped Monika offset some of her expenses.



I can appreciate that Monika’s friends – of which there are many at REI – feel strongly about this situation. That said, this case involves important issues of Washington law that deserve the attention of the Washington Supreme Court, which is the reason REI asked the court to consider the case. We trust that when this case is resolved, people will see that we have acted responsibly and in a manner consistent with REI’s enduring values.



We wish you continued adventures and hope we can continue to serve you.



Libby Catalinich

Director, Corporate Communications

REI - Recreational Equipment, Inc.

I got nearly the same form letter. So . . .is the claim of expense reimbursement legit? I had thought they hadn't given her anything. Ryan?

I got nearly the same form letter.  So . . .is the claim of expense reimbursement legit?  I had thought they hadn't given her anything.  Ryan?

I was wrong when I said that REI failed to make a gesture of any kind. 18 months after her accident, and a few weeks after she filed a complaint, REI offered an amount to offset (partially) out of pocket meds. Monika never received reimbursement for the bike, nor the forensic bike test.

Shame!

Any suggestions on what to do with the handful of cash once I return my past 5 yrs of REI purchases?

If everyone is making returns in protest, shouldn't we be doing so in a large obnoxious group carrying signs, clogging lines and such?

I sent an e-mail and returned a piece of rei branded luggage I bought over ten years ago... when asked why i was returning, I said I was afraid of faulty REI branded equipement injuring me.

I still have an rei sleeping bag. scarred what might happen should the zipper fail and trap me in.

Thought I would revive this thread. Ryan told me Sat. night that the State Supreme Court has refused to her the appeal from REI. So in the end she would have won.

thanks gregg.  i'm still disgusted with rei.  they talk the line, but they don't walk it.  they could have stood up, but they didn't.  they are right up there with the monkeys who created the shrinking candybar and the folks who found focus groups that determined 11.2 oz of beverage satisfied better than 12.

my 'membership' at rei goes back to the early 60's.  i'm not quite giving up them, but i feel they have lost thier way..        dg

Thought I would revive this thread.  Ryan told me Sat. night that the State Supreme Court has refused to her the appeal from REI.  So in the end she would have won.

I haven't re-read the entire thread, but I believe the ruling which REI had appealed was that Monika's case had legal standing and could proceed to trial. So the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal does not mean Monika has won, but that her estate at last has the chance to pursue justice in court.

Which means, I suspect, that REI will be hasty to seek a settlement. They would be certifiably insane to take this case to trial.

"REI defends reputation despite claims of broken bikes and injured riders"  on KOMO News tonight.

Link

www.komonews.com/news/local/REI-defends-...ab=gallery&c=y&img=0

At the start of this thread I sent several e-mails to REI regarding their policy on personal injury due to REI branded equipment failure.  All of REI's responses were 100% evasive.

Glad to see the local station finally picking this up.

I despise KOMO's joke journalism/sensationalism almost as much as REI but they have their muckraking use. The horrible thing about this entire saga is the absolute corporate led REFUSAL to accept any responsibility at all. Lawyer up and delay, delay, delay. When an executive can't even offer an apology you know the lawyers are in charge.

Channel 4 at 11pm tonight for those who missed it earlier.

I for one am pleased that their corporate behavior in this matter is finally getting an audience beyond her family, friends and the TAY community. Since this started with Monika I have not set foot in an REI and I don't plan to in the future until they apologize to her family and Ryan. It angers me that they let the publicist respond instead of actually admitting that what they did was WRONG!!.