REI appeals Monika's case

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.