Printable View
Lots of stuff going on with that company - if you like the bishops, or any of their other products (proud TD2 rider here) - order them while you still can.
details coming out slowly but some asshat is suing them cause he didn't have the sense to check his own equipment...
edit - I take back the Asshat...but this whole thing still sucks.
Oh for fucks sake. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
Damn...
And you guys wonder why i bash on the 'murican "way o' life".
lawsuit has been going on for over a year...but it looks like we've arrived at the beginning of the end here...
By far the best racing bindings I've ever had, completely bulletproof. I hear the Bishops are just as good.
I am so pissed when people don't take responsibility for shit like this. If you want a sport where you can't get hurt, take up crochet.
Just ordered a pair myself. Is it worth getting any spare parts while I still can or are the they bomber enough?
As I recall (and I'm not a boarder, let alone a carver), there was in fact a defect in a certain series of bindings, which has since been remedied.Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
That said, if the details are coming out slowly, how are you certain that the problem was that he didn't check his gear?
ah, yes, bash on us while knowing no details. That obviously is the Scandinavian way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemas
I thought the Scandanavian way of life was 70% income taxes, socialism, and a two month summer :fm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
You probably know better than me, given your location...but my understanding was that the intec heel failed, not the binding. I have not seen any documentation that the binding itself was defective. Anyone who uses intec heels should be aware that there are plastic and moving parts in there and they should be checked for wear and tear regularly. The pics and descriptions that came out at the time of the accident implied that either the intec pins were not correctly engaged (user error) or the heel simply failed (I'd say user error in not checking your equipment)Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
Now I understand that the person involved in the accident was seriously injured, but it's bullshit to direct the suit at the guy who made the parts that worked as designed. Suing F2 makes more sense (though I disagree with 99% of lawsuits out there)
We're going to lose one of the most innovative binding designers in the world because someone always needs to blame somebody else for their own fuck up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Nah, the Finnish way would be to bash on oneself (which I do daily)...
Been reading too much 'murican forums, so I've picket up a few traits here and there... One being the arrogant bastard:the_finge.
The thing I don't like is the culture where no one takes responsibility of ones actions. That sad thing in WA last season was a prime example of it, you hit a kicker and break your back... Now, who forced you to hit that kicker, and did the guy check it it out 1st... I believe not.
Same thing applies here, stuff breaks and you can hurt yourself. Get insured and don't blame others from your mistakes (be it lack of judgement or something else). If you wan't to avoid accidents, you better not leave your bed, EVER.
Last i heard, Bomber had been dropped from the case, maybe im totally wrong here.
You are wrong. still going on and now getting worse for bomber.
Actually, I think you're right about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
Assuming that it was the kind of failure that would've been evident on inspection... maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
Didn't Bomber market it in the US? Does F2 do business here? Not rhetorical questions; I don't know this market.Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
Also, you suggest (unless I read your post wrong) that F2 designed and Bomber built it. Assuming they did, the question of whether it's a design or manufacturing defect would play in, as would the terms of the agreement between F2 and Bomber. If F2 were not required by law to indemnify Bomber, Bomber could've insisted on indemnity in their contract. Presumably, neither is the case, since this case is going forward.
I don't know what the facts are on this. But I've heard through the grapevine, from people who ride these bindings and who decry this kind of lawsuit, that this one has merit and -- more to the point, perhaps -- that the plaintiff is anything but an asshat. That's obviously secondhand information at best, and those with better info should chime in. But a chicken little post isn't exactly going to move the ball forward either.
Don't forget hot naked blondes in the sauna.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
All of my information is second or third hand, but I believe I am accurate on the details that are in the public record.
yes Bomber is the distributor of F2 in the US (I believe)Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
F2 designs and builds the heel. Bomber designs and builds the bindings that the heels fit into (along with 7 or so other binding makers). The failure point was the heel, not the binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
I don't know the guy personally, but whatever...I'm sorry he hurt his leg, but suing Bomber is going to get you nothing. They are a small company and I doubt this will result in anything other than putting them out of business. There will be no money left to help him with his medical bills once the lawyers have consumed the carcass.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
So I took a look at the docket. Case is Broadbent v. Bomber Indus., Inc., et al., No. CGC-05-443225 in San Francisco Superior Court.
Broadbent dismissed Bomber and F2 in March. It looks like the only reason Bomber is still in the case is that Boards & More cross-complained against them this month.
You can look at the docs yourself in the docket. Unfortunately, they're in single-page TIFF format, which is a pain in the ass.
for some reason I can't access past the headline page. I wasn't aware that the he had dropped the case against Bomber, just that F2 (boards & more) had sued bomber to push their liability off...
the whole thing still pisses me off. Fin is one of the nicest guys around and puts a ton of heart into designing shit that doesn't break...much. :(
So maybe it's because I know something about the history of products liability litigation in this country (starting about the 1890s, in the heyday of patent medicines and the like), or maybe I'm just jaded about the litigation process, but it seems to me like the guy did it by the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by tex1230
When you don't know for sure who did what, and you don't have access to the agreements among the potentially liable parties, you sue the chain of distribution to make it easier to get access to the documents etc. You want to stop any statutes of limitations that might otherwise run, for one thing. Plus -- and probably more significant -- getting all the potentially responsible parties in the case at the outset is a really good idea. The difference between trying to get evidence from a party to a litigation and from a third party is significant, for one thing. And as a procedural matter, you may be barred from bringing two cases involving the same incident, and even if you aren't, findings against you in the first case will be held against you in the second, but any findings in your favor in the first are inadmissible in the second.
So for whatever reason, the guy decided earlier this year to drop the case against Bomber. Maybe he decided that they didn't do anything wrong; maybe they didn't have the resources to pay a judgment; who knows. But he dropped them. Then Boards & More comes back and essentially sues Bomber itself.
Do you really think that if he'd just sued Boards & More, they wouldn't have tried to bring Bomber in? I don't know any of the parties involved, but I've never seen a situation like that.
I'm buying Cateks.
What the hell are all you guys talking about???
If you have to ask... you probably don't want to know.
But in a nutshell, tex isn't voting for John Edwards and I'm upholding Truth, Justice, and the American Tort Law System.
OK, I'll bite. I got banned from posting on Bomber over this subject, but Fin doesn't have that control here. So here goes...
Disclosure: Joel Broadbent (the plaintiff) is a friend of mine. I've known him since 2002 and we met because of snowboarding. Alpine/Carving snowboarding to be specific. I am also a big fan of Bomber as a company, Fin (Bomber's owner) as an individual (despite his apparent distaste for me and some of the things I've posted on BomberOnline and TahoeCarvers), and the products Bomber makes. I have 3+ pair of Bomber TrenchDigger (TD2) bindings and use the Intec heels that are the subject of this suit, in my hard snowboard boots.
It took me a long time (two years) to get a direct answer from Fin as to why I got banned. It was apparently because I'd posted some stuff in a thread on the subject of the lawsuit that was not considered 'public' knowledge. I also posted some things in defense of Joel Broadbent because he obviously had no voice on the BOL site and because there was a huge gang-up and thrashing of him personally by people who had no details of any part of the suit, but simply knew he had filed a suit and it involved Bomber. The primary detail that I posted was something I brought up initially out of empathy/sympathy for Fin, plus surprise. I pointed out that at the time of the original incident (Christmas 2004), Bomber Industries had no liability insurance. I found this surprising, considering the fact they make bindings and sell them in our insanely litigious country. Had I known this was such a sensitive subject or disclosure to Fin, I probably wouldn't have posted it. And had I been notified that it was the reason I was about to be banned, I'd have deleted the thread immediately. OK. All that said, here's some background.
Bomber is based in Colorado and makes awesome, bomb-proof snowboard, telemark, split board and ski-board (snowlerblade) bindings.
F2, aka Boards n More, is the creator and manufacturer of a special heel design for hard snowboard boots called "Intec". These days, all hard SB boots (all 3 mfgs) have a standard designed heel that can be removed and replaced with F2's Intec step-in heel mechanism.
Joel Broadbent was a California Resident at the time he was injured while riding in Utah. I'm not sure where he is living now. He has endured a horrible ordeal, nearly having his leg amputated a couple of times.
Some visual aids...
The F2 Intec heels at the center of this suit:
http://www.alpinecarving.com/images/F2_intec_heel.jpg
Here's what the insides look like if you take them apart (don't take them apart). Note the strong springs that keep the two metal pins in place. The pins are what hold the heel into the bindings. Remember this is snowboarding, so the only release is done manually by pulling on the cable that retracts the pins.
http://www.alpinecarving.com/images/iheels_sm.jpg
Here's what the heels look like when mounted to a pair of boots (the one on the left has the heel, the one on the right doesn't). You can see the release handle coming out of the top of the boot.
http://www.alpinecarving.com/images/...ad_stratos.jpg
Broadbent was actually on UPZ boots, but the heel assembly looks the same and I couldn't find an equivalent picture of the UPZ model.
Set them up correctly and step into the binding and the whole thing looks like this:
http://www.bomberonline.com/store/im...ll_boot_lg.jpg
When you pull the release cable, the pins retract into the heel and you can step out of the bindings. I've used this set up for years now, without no major problems.
Broadbent is a very accomplished snowboarder and had used this set up before, knew how to properly adjust the bindings, and correctly installed the heels into the boots. The boots and the heels were brand new (at most a couple of days on each) at the time of his injury. So wear and tear on the equipment is a moot point, and to my knowledge is not part of any of the arguments.
Boards n More (aka F2) apparently has a complex corporate structure, plus is a European company (Austria). This apparently makes it a bit more challenging to sue them. F2's distributor of Intec heels in the US is Bomber Industries.
On Christmas Eve, 2004, Broadbent was snowboarding in Utah. He was not doing anything unusual, just carving along at a normal rate of speed when he realized one of his bindings had just released. This release caused him to fall, and in the fall, the board rotated the leg that remained attached dramatically. This caused multiple fractures to his leg. Imagine having only one foot in a snowboard and having it spin like a helicopter blade while your upper body remains straight - ouch. Upon further inspection, the binding hadn't released, but rather the heel had broken.
Joel's injuries were very serious. Over the course of a couple of years (not sure if he's even done yet), he was told more than once that it appeared his leg would need to be amputated. His leg was saved, he can now walk, but I don't know if he'll ever be able to ski/snowboard again, nor do other sports that were an important part of his life. Last I heard, his insurance had stopped paying for care once their max coverage of $1,000,000 was reached. Of that $1M, Joel was personally responsible for over $200K - take these numbers with a grain of salt, I haven't spoken with him about it in ages. But you get the idea. It has already cost him personally over $250K, plus he still faces additional costs for care - he hit that $1M ceiling well before his care was complete.
The binding did not fail. Nor did the boot. As I understand it, tests were done on the heel (F2's product) that determined flaws in the design of the heel, or design of the molds for the plastic parts, caused the heel piece to fail (break). Apparently F2 has since modified the production process, molds, or something, to prevent this problem happening again. No recall was ever issued for older heels. I've had heels from before and after this supposed redesign, and not had problems with them. I did toss out the set I got around the same time Broadbent got the ones that failed on him. Broadbent paid an engineering firm to evaluate the failed heel and their determination was that a design or manufacturing flaw was the cause of the accident.
In 2005 Broadbent brought suit against F2/Boards n More (BnM). Based on his lawyer's advice, Bomber was named in the suit because they were the US distributor, and because it was the only way to navigate through the corporate structure to BnM in Austria. Joel expressed to me, both at the time, and repeatedly since, that he was reluctant to include Bomber, and not happy that it had to be that way. However, his lawyers insisted it was the only way to ensure access to BnM.
I don't get the impression at all that Broadbent is seeking absurd damages in this suit. He just wants his medical bills covered. I'm not sure what the status is of that at this point.
Because Bomber didn't have insurance, they were on the hook to defend themselves at their own expense. Bomber is a small business (like 3 employees). The legal fees involved in this case have been painfully expensive for Fin. I get the impression that the company has been on the brink of bankruptcy/insolvency at various points throughout the process. All because of the legal fees. Fin has claimed he has spent nearly every dime of his personal/family savings in his efforts to defend his company. I believe him. In recent legal proceedings posted on the web, it appears his attorney has withdrawn from the case. I can only speculate it is because Fin can't afford to pay him.
As appears inevitable in our legal system, the case has taken its time to wind through the courts. There is a trial date for next May, but there have been dates before that have slipped. Notably, earlier this month Broadbent's attorneys filed to release Bomber from the suit, and this release was accepted. Apparently Broadbent's attorneys now have sufficient or direct access to Boards n More, and the naming of Bomber in the suit is no longer necessary in their judgement. Almost immediately, BnM filed a Cross-Complaint against Bomber. So it looked like Bomber was out of the woods, but as Steven van Zandt says in The Sopranos, "Just when I thought I was out--they pull me back in!"
This whole thing makes me mad. Its crazy that Fin had to be involved at all. Its awful that Broadbent got injured so severely by a product that was apparently defective. It irks me that two years later, there doesn't appear any end in sight. It is a shame that Bomber has been forced to spend untold money defending itself in a case they only appear peripherally involved. It seems ridiculous that Boards n More is hiding behind Bomber in this action. Its too bad I can't post on BomberOnline any more. Its a little comical that Fin refuses to even let me order things from the company (according to Fin, at the suggestion of his attorneys). I found it sort of ironic when I tried to order some replacement Intec heels last year since mine were getting worn. And it will be horrible if one of the only makers of hardboot plate bindings is put out of business over this. Especially so, given that the people who run it are great folks.
I've tried to write this post in as objective a fashion as I can. Please treat everything I've written as speculation rather than fact. Most of the details I posted are hearsay/2nd hand news/observations. I am not a lawyer, not financially associated with anyone involved in the case, and only an interested observer. If someone feels that something I've posted here prejudices or jeopardizes either side in this legal proceeding, please notify me and I will remove the objectionable portions of the post.
wow.
thanks for the summary randy s - that sounds like a shitty situation for all people involved :(
Randy,
Thanks for the write-up. Damn shame.