REI appeals Monika's case

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.