For you bomber binding fans

[Hutch]

Thinking maybe Bomber should be able to go after BoardsnMore for indemnity for their fees, even without a contractual indemnity provision, if the liability lies with them. I hope they can hang on that long.

[Name Redacted]

Whenever you have lawyers and insurance companies involved someone is gonna get proper fucked.

Thanks for givin us the skinny randy.

Bomber is a good company who is getting proper fucked. But it sounds like it's partially their own fault. Who runs a binding company without insurance? That's just asking for it.

I still hate seeing one of the few local grassroot companies go down.

[MakersTeleMark]

It's not the Soprano's.

[The Dad]

Thanks, Randy.

For a bit of historical perspective, it's interesting to note that up until about a hundred years ago, Broadbent's only claim would've been against the guy who sold him the allegedly defective product -- here, apparently, Bomber. The manufacturer was unreachable, because it had no contractual relationship with the consumer. Through a series of innovations in the law (culminating in a lawsuit against a car manufacturer in about 1930, IIRC), products liability law evolved to let the consumer go after the manufacturer, not just the middleman, based on a tort theory rather than contract. But it's an artifact of this history that it remains often easier to go after a person further down the chain of distribution than the actual responsible party.

That said, while I'm not entirely surprised that a small player in a small but potentially dangerous industry wouldn't carry insurance, I am surprised that his terms of purchase for products manufactured by others didn't include some sort of indemnity provision.

[tex1230]

more info than I have seen in the past. Asshat comment withdrawn. How about we just boycott F2 and all other Boards & More brands and leave it at that. I hope I am wrong but I don't think Bomber has the financial ability to fight the new suit.

[The Dad]

How about we just boycott F2 and all other Boards & More brands and leave it at that.

If the asshat fits...

[flyby]

Thanks for the skinny on everything Randy. That sounds like a horrible situation for all the parties involved. Bomber definitely should have had some insurance going though. It doesn't sound like this guy's seeking excessive damages or anything.
________
marijuana news

[Garrett]

This is a sad story. For me, the saddest part of the story is that however this is remedied (in a way extremely painful to all parties, it is sure) the human errors that led to an unsafe product being produced in the first place will not be substantially changed. Heck, the defective parts weren't even recalled...no doubt because recalls for low volume products in this country are extremely unlikely unless they are voluntary, and the legal system gives the players here good reason to avoid any admission of wrongdoing.

When a safety defect in a life-critical system like a binding is found, it is imperative that blame and punishment take a back seat to analysis and improvement. Clearly that isn't the case here, as some of those bindings are still out there. The legal system sucks real hard at improving the science and economics of these situations. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the legal system, I'm saying the legal system isn't the answer.

Standards. Testing. Notice that standard was published after this event.

I can't feel too much empathy for the seller. Selling life-critical systems without indemnification or insurance is something bordering on criminal in my mind. At the very least it is irresponsible.

[adrenalated]

Thanks for the skinny on everything Randy. That sounds like a horrible situation for all the parties involved. Bomber definitely should have had some insurance going though. It doesn't sound like this guy's seeking excessive damages or anything.

Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? It wouldn't surprise me at all if Bomber would have been unable to exist in the first place if they had purchased insurance. Liability insurance, particularly for niche sports that are viewed as "extreme" by the mainstream, is not cheap.

Fin is a great guy. IMO, they make the best tele binding out there. I really hope Bomber makes it through.

[rideit]

I have to admit, I love mine on my carving deck.
Super-stout. (standard interface)

[skifornix]

My father was in an accident in a sailplane built in Germany. The part that failed was the elevator crank. A super critical part. After the accident the German manufacturer supplied everyone world wide with a re-designed crank with mandatory instructions to replace the original. We are in Australia. The legal advice at the end of it all was there was no hope of successfully sueing the manufacturer being off shore and in Europe. And there was no legal redress with the Australian agent for the aircraft. Being at work at the time (being an instructor instructing a student at the time of the accident) medical was just covered. The student was not as well covered and is in a wheel chair to this day with real redress.
Once you start to try to sue off shore it appears there is a different set of evolving rules at work.
We have had cases in Australia where companies in the USA have been succseefully sued. But the have been typically huge (class actions) medical cases. And even then with much lower payouts than the exact same case carried out internally in the USA.

[SuperChief]

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.

I see it as the american lottery, so many people see the settlement numbers and think they may have hit the lottery after they burnt their coochie with a cup of coffee.

Vibes for the dude in the accident, And I hope the guy supporting his family from Bomber makes out allright.

Looking at that interface, no way in hell would I step into a hard boot binding with 2 plastic heel pieces. and two little pins holding your heel in a plastic bail.

Why do you need step in bindings for a hardboot snowboard? How hard is it to bend over and throw a bail?

[Cyber Cop]

Looking at that interface, no way in hell would I step into a hard boot binding with 2 plastic heel pieces. and two little pins holding your heel in a plastic bail.

Why do you need step in bindings for a hardboot snowboard? How hard is it to bend over and throw a bail?

Sad deal, just thinking about that crash makes me cringe. Major vibes, hope he gets squared away with his bills.

No way in hell would I add that much complexity and introduce so many more points of possible failure at such a critical place just to get step in convenience.

I don't do plates but that bomber binding looks solid. Can't believe they are still offering that heel shit. Don't care how many improvements it's had, after hearing this story I wouldn't touch that trash. Simple and solid wins the day.

Lot of complexity added to some strap brands to get convenience too. Flows and k2 cinch come to mind. I'm sure for the most part they are solid now, but fuck it. Saves you minuscule time and effort , not worth the risk. Stick with my new fav the Unions and my reliable old drakes. Simple, simple, simple. Just check the screws are tight and don't fret.

[tex1230]

Looking at that interface, no way in hell would I step into a hard boot binding with 2 plastic heel pieces. and two little pins holding your heel in a plastic bail.

Why do you need step in bindings for a hardboot snowboard? How hard is it to bend over and throw a bail?

The step in (intec) interface is a much stiffer, quicker reacting interface. no play at all. Some people like this, some just use it for the convenience of release.

It's nice to have the immediate response on icy steeps, but aside from that I prefer to have a little play...

[tex1230]

A little more info and commentary from a friend on the tahoe carvers board (I'd post a link but you need to subscribe and I figured you were all too lazy )
the comments are in response to Randy S's similarly posted comments over there:

> Basic sequence. Joel dropped Bomber from the suit (as he's said all along he wanted to do),


Bullshit. Joel dragged Bomber through this hell for more than TWO YEARS. Fin has spent every last dime fighting this thing, not to mention endless hours of wasted time, sleepless nights, and crushing stress. 401k? Cashed out. Life savings? Gone. THE ONLY REASON BOMBER HAS BEEN DROPPED FROM THE SUIT is because they have nothing more to give. They have been sucked dry. If Fin had any more money left, Joel would still have him in the suit. That is a fact. It is all about the money.


The dismissal from the suit is "Without Prejudice". What that means is, Bomber can be BROUGHT BACK into the suit at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, by filling out a single form. In under 24 hours, Bomber will be right back in it. Joel can use this to get Bomber to do all kinds of things Bomber doesn't want to. In fact, they are already waving this in Fin's face to extract more information out of him. If he doesn't satisfy their whims, he's right back in the suit. It is extortion, plain and simple. Now the trial is scheduled for June of 2008. 8 more months of this nonsense for Bomber.


> this was approved by the court. Shortly thereafter, Boards N More (aka F2) filed a cross-complaint against Bomber. Joel actually filed an objection to this cross-complaint


At first glance, that seems like a nice thing to do, but let's not forget that he could have released Bomber from the suit at any time in the past 2 years. Why didn't he? (insert here that he couldn't for some invented reason, and he was just doing what he "had" to do.) Well if that's true, then why can he release Bomber now? What has changed? Oh, that's right, Bomber's run out of money! You can't get blood from a turnip!! This is Joel's suit. Always has been, and still is. The reason B&M/F2 can sue Bomber is because Bomber was frivolously included in the first place. They're doing it to cast a perception of fault on their co-defendant. Again, had Joel not included Bomber, this wouldn't be happening.

> As I understood it (from conversation years ago), something about making sure they had satisfactorily navigated to the ultimate parent company in Austria.

Incorrect. The Hague Convention is an international law that lets lawsuits travel across countries. It has nothing to do with distributors. The ability to sue the distributor is one of those great laws California has (there are only about 4 states that now allow this) where you can sue everyone in the "chain of distribution". You don't have to, but you can. And Joel CHOSE to sue Bomber or at least was weak willed enough to allow his attorney to talk him into it. They used Bomber to fund their case against F2/Boards and More. Once again, it's about the money.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE: Furthermore, the interpretation of the chain of the suit, that Bomber had to be sued in order to get to Boards and More, is not accurate. Bomber is a co-defendant and the TD2 is specifically being tagged as part of or potentially in-whole as a contributor and/or the main cause of the accident.

> But I also feel everyone wants to unfairly gang up on Joel.


He's brought that on himself by sicking the 800lb gorilla that is the US legal system on an innocent mom n' pop operation that has done nothing but good for this sport and this community. His actions need to be exposed, so that hopefully the next time something like this happens, the next person will think twice before taking down, say, Catek, or Donek, or anybody the lawyers feel like destroying.

I'm sorry if my anger comes across as directed at you, that's not my intention. But I can't let you intimate that Joel is the good guy or squeeky clean here. He can tell you he never wanted to hurt Bomber until he's blue in the face. His actions, save for these last few moot gestures, say the exact opposite.
.

[Danno]

I am no expert in product liability law, but that post seems riddled with incorrect things to me. His assertions about suits against foreign companies seems off, his comments about only 4 states allowing a suit such as this (for real, is he really trying to say that in many states you can't sue the person who manufactures, markets and sells the binding, simply because the part that failed was something they contracted out? That's ludicrous). He also seems to believe that the plaintiff somehow received some benefit from Bomber being sucked dry by legal fees, which is not true.

We don't know the facts, but that post doesn't really seem to enlighten us any.

If the heel piece was indeed defective, and Bomber was selling it, I see no reason why they should somehow be innocent of everything. They were not "frivolously included". And how they could not have insurance or an indemnification agreement is nuts. By no means am I saying they deserve what has happened, or that they are in the wrong; from all accounts tehy're a good company making good products. But there's no "good guys" exception to product liability law.

[Jack Michaud]

Danno, if you know I am wrong, then please supply the correct facts. Saying I "seem" to be wrong doesn't really enlighten us any.

Only a few states allow everyone who made a nickel off a product to be sued. CA in its infinite liberal wisdom is one of them.

Why no liability insurance? Same reason Fin lives in his shop and can only employ himself and 2 others.

Disclaimers/indemnification statements aren't worth the paper.

Read the post again, there are several very enlightening points. If you don't get them, then I'd say you're about as intelligent as your signature implies.

Man, the lawyer rump-swabs in this thread make me want to vomit.

[Hutch]

OK, smart guy.

They used Bomber to fund their case against F2/Boards and More. Once again, it's about the money.

1.) How does suing someone fund your case? (edit: Because Bomber brought a cross-claim against the heelpiece mfr?)

Only a few states allow everyone who made a nickle off a product to be sued.

2.) Restatment of Torts: Product Liability § 1. Liability Of Commercial Seller Or Distributor For Harm Caused By Defective Products: "One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect."

any seller in the chain of distribution (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) is liable for the sale of a defective product that was a cause of the plaintiff's injury. Support for the rule is widespread. See Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 391 P.2d 168, 171-72 (Cal.1964) (en banc); Cottom v. McGuire Funeral Service, Inc., 262 A.2d 807, 809 (D.C.1970); Smith v. Fiat-Roosevelt Motors, Inc., 556 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1977) (applying Florida law) (importer-distributor subject to strict liability for uncrashworthy car); Visnoski v. J.C. Penney Co., 477 So.2d 29 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985); Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp., 500 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986), reh'g denied, 509 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1987); Lawrence v. Brandell Prods., Inc., 619 So.2d 427 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); Curry v. Sile Distrib., 727 F.Supp. 1052 (N.D.Miss.1990) (The court held that the leading case holding to the contrary, Sam Shainberg Co. of Jackson v. Barlow, 258 So.2d 242 (Miss.1972), although not explicitly overruled, is no longer the rule in Mississippi. In Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 379 (Miss.1986), the Mississippi Court held that Shainberg was "anomalous if not irrational."); Keener v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo.1969) (retailer liable for defective design); Mead v. Warner Pruyn Div., Finch Pruyn Sales, Inc., 394 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y.App.Div.1977); Giuffrida v. Panasonic Indus. Co., 607 N.Y.S.2d 72 (1994); Moss v. Polyco, Inc., 522 P.2d 622, 626-27 (Okla.1974); Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 337 A.2d 893, 898 n. 3 (Pa.1975) (seller liable for failure to warn); McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787, 790 n. 3 (Tex.1967) (distributor liable for failure to warn); Oser v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 951 F.Supp. 115 (S.D.Tex.1996) (retail seller subject to liability for defective shopping bag that tore causing injury to plaintiff); Zamora v. Mobil Corp., 704 P.2d 584 (Wash.1985); Dippel v. Sciano, 155 N.W.2d 55 (Wis.1967).

See also Fischer and Powers, Products Liability--Cases and Materials 588 (1988) ("The overwhelming majority of courts have followed the position taken in Vandermark and Comment f by applying strict tort liability to retailers."); Madden, Products Liability § 3.16 (2d ed. 1988) ("Decisions in most jurisdictions have held that the doctrine of strict tort liability may be applied against the ordinary retailer in products liability cases."); Cavico, The Strict Tort Liability of Retailers, Wholesalers, and Distributors of Defective Products, 12 Nova L. Rev. 213, 218 (1987) ("A great majority of states have followed the Vandermark principle.").

[Garrett]

Why no liability insurance?

Misplaced optimism.

Also: It is nickel, asshat.

[Cyber Cop]

What did we all learn from this mess???































hardbooters are still gay.

[flip]

Danno, if you know I am wrong, then please supply the correct facts. Saying I "seem" to be wrong doesn't really enlighten us any.

Only a few states allow everyone who made a nickel off a product to be sued. CA in its infinite liberal wisdom is one of them.

I don't know where you came up with four states or even a dozen. As alpinedad pointed out, the ability to hold the supply chain accountability for product liability is a fundamental tenant of US Tort law. If you get a chance, you can thank this legal structure for the fact that, if say your Ford Explorer has exploding tires, you can actually sue Ford and Firestone for killing your family. It exists in every state.

Joel would have been an idiot to not include Bomber in the suit as it would have gone to trial with F2 only, who could have claimed Bomber was solely liable and won, leaving Joel NO option but to sue Bomber wholely. Including Bomber in the original suit allows them to defend themselves and insure that the responsible party (F2) bears as much of the burden as possible. I think we all recognize that this sucks for Bomber, and it sucks for Joel, but it's the reality of the legal system. Honestly, there isn't much of a better way to do it. If you have ideas, I'm sure a lot of legislators would like to hear it.

It's easy for you to scream and yell and get angry at Joel, but let's see if you decide not to sue when you're in chronic pain, hundreds of thousands in debt, facing new medical bills, barely employable because of your condition, and all of it is the clear result of a defective product. If you DO decide to sue, all the info we have hear says that this was the only way to do it.

Again, it sucks and is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[allenataylor]

Thats a life raft in a sea of bullshit. It sounds like a shitty situation for everyone involved. In the end though if bomber gets fucked it sounds like its because they didn't have insurance and that is escencially their fault. It sounds like insurance on their part could have saved them the problems they encountered.

Randy it sounds like your friend is just looking to get his medical bills covered. Good for him for not looking to make money off the whole situation. I hope rehab goes well for him and he is able to some get back into sports some day.

[tex1230]

The post I cross-quoted was from Jack M. by the way,

[willywhit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKtdR486fhg
bump for METAL !!!!