Steve Dold Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 I remember Joel making a post on tahoecarvers.com saying that the binding had failed, then a later one correcting himself and saying that the heel had failed and caused the accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy S. Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Wow, this thread is getting to be like Aisling's OT thread. It just won't go away. Although in this case, that's probably good. It is likely a healthy thing that we discuss and debate this issue, although there's not much we, even collectively can do about the US Judicial process and the litigious nature of our society. A couple of points of clarification: Joel's Intec heel failed. Not the binding. If it read differently in the brief/filing, it is because of how it was written. It is clear that the fault lies in the heel and that it appears to have been either a design or manufacturing flaw, or some combination thereof. Bomber is merely the US distributor of the F2 product. Boards n More is (I believe) the parent company of F2 (or holding company or something like that). Unlike Bomber, BnM is a big company with lots of resources, insurance and lawyers. Could the failure have been due to setup. Perhaps, but unlikely. Joel is not a novice and has a good understanding of how our equipment works and is set up. These were brand new heels for him, but he's not new to setting up Bomber bindings. As I understand it, an engineering firm has evaluated all the components and puts the blame squarely on the failure of the heel piece. Should Bomber be named in the case? I don't know. But rightly or wrongly they are. I do know that Joel bears no ill will toward Fin, Michelle, Bomber or anyone else in the community. The lawsuit is proceeding according to the direction of his lawyer(s). I'm not a lawyer (although I've played one on TV - well I've just worked with them for big chunks of my career actually) and don't know the details of product liability lawsuits. My understanding is that Bomber is named in the suit in order to establish the chain to F2/BnM, and solely as a legal obligation. Certainly not with any intent to extract money from Bomber and regrettably (Joel doesn't like it either, but its the way its going) at no small expense. Anyone who has ever had to hire a lawyer knows how quickly their costs escalate. I'm sure that simply responding to this suit, with the attendant travel and lawyers fees is a significant burden on a small business like Bomber. Kip makes some good points. So do Jack and D-Sub. Our legal system is ****ed up. But it also provides checks and balances for powerful corporations and a venue for the consumer to seek compensation if they are wronged. That doesn't help Bomber right now and it likely won't help Joel that much in the long run. I'm sure that Joel, his so-called "bottom feeding" lawyers, Fin, his "bottom feeding" lawyers, F2, BnM and their "bottom feeding" lawyers are all reading these threads. I'm not sure what they'll gain from that, but it probably helps occupy some time for them (at $300/hr to each party). Personally I hope the whole thing gets resolved soon. I'd like to move on to more constructive discussions. Like this cool RAB thing that Fin has developed, or maybe setting him loose on his CNC machine to make us better heels (I suspect F2 owns the patent on the whole Intec thing which would probably prevent that from happening - maybe Fin could design a step-in TD3 that doesn't use intec or fast heels). Either way I pray that his business is around to see the next generation of products. Perhaps the best thread on this subject is the Bomber Needs Your Help one. I loved Fin's idea of using the proceeds either to defend himself or to provide some small compensation to Joel. If 1000 of us (are there that many?) gave $20, it should help to cover some of Bomber's legal costs and keep the company running. Certainly buying a pair or two of TDs, some spare e-rings, board bags, whatever will help as well. Good luck to everyone involved. I hope it gets resolved soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.T. Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Jack, You are correct. The section 13 of the filing says "...the right Intec heel portion failed, releasing plaintiff's foot from his snowboard..." In the claim they refer to the entire assembly (Bomber TD, intec heel...) as the "binding". They do not directly claim that any components manufactured by Bomber Industries failed. With most lawsuits, the attorney's will list all possible defendants in the beginning, it can be difficult if not impossible to add them at a later date. This is the reason that Bomber, Boards & More, and F2 are listed as well as "John Doe one through fifty". This way the plaintiff's can add other parties at a late date. Hopefully Mr. & Mrs. Broadbent will realize that Bomber should not be a part of the lawsuit and tell the attorneys drop the case against Bomber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Streuth. Our legal system is ****ed up. It is. I recently bought a bike in the EU and it had "lawyer lugs" on the front forks. They are designed to impede the quick release (QR) mechanism. You have to file them off, or the quick release doesn't work. Nice work legal people. Accidents do happen, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skatha Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 My friend was named in a lawsuit directed mainly to Eli Lilly-why? She prescribed the guy Prozac... Coupled with another suit that hit her at the same time....both of which were subsequently dropped pushed her liability insurance 1 year from $13,000 to $32,000...... I already mentioned my experience with being added to a suit much to the family's dismay... It's called "shotgunning the chart" every MD listed in the record is named to the suit. The hope sometime is that a doc will cave and settle, although most don't.... Lawsuits killed the American light plane industry. Manufacturers like Cessna were bought out and the average 2 seater went from reasonably priced to about $350,000 new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipstar Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 >> #75 1 Day Ago Jack Michaud Quote: Originally Posted by kipstar quite why Bomber is involved is unclear to me; unless they knew or should have known that the product would not work for someone that size. Jack replies.... I find it wildly offensive that this even enters into your brain as a possibility. Well, this is a fairly standard test for liability for someone selling something relating to negligence around these parts from what little I know and can recall from studying law. I have no doubt that Bomber are trying to do the best for the sport, but this is parroting the usual test. I am not implying anything about anyone. That said, I DO see that Bomber have recommended weights for bindings such as the Raichle... based on the body of evidence now building regarding the strength of the step in, it would seem that perhaps this prudent step should expand to include the whole step in system. <edited to be clear again> and by system I mean the two parts of the system, the binding (which apparently never has any problems) and the heel (which at least in this case did). So in the history of this sytem what other cases are there to support that this <edited to be clear again!) SYSTEM ie. heel piece is simply not strong for big guys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 >> #75 1 Day Ago Jack Michaud Quote: Originally Posted by kipstar quite why Bomber is involved is unclear to me; unless they knew or should have known that the product would not work for someone that size. Jack replies.... I find it wildly offensive that this even enters into your brain as a possibility. Well, this is a fairly standard test for liability for someone selling something relating to negligence around these parts from what little I know and can recall from studying law. I have no doubt that Bomber are trying to do the best for the sport, but this is parroting the usual test. I am not implying anything about anyone. That said, I DO see that Bomber have recommended weights for bindings such as the Raichle... based on the body of evidence now building regarding the strength of the step in, it would seem that perhaps this prudent step should expand to include the whole step in system. So in the history of this sytem what other cases are there to support that this binding is not strong for big guys? THE BINDING DIDNT FAIL. please...get your facts straight listen...Hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of people use the intec system...this is the first time Ive ever heard of this happening thats some pretty damn good odds! quit making assumptions, and for gods sake if you want to imply that bomber might have been complicit in somethihng...dont do it on their own website, especially where, due to the BS of the legal system, Fin is not allowed to talk about it ie defend himself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 THE BINDING DIDNT FAIL. please...get your facts straightlisten...Hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of people use the intec system...this is the first time Ive ever heard of this happening thats some pretty damn good odds! quit making assumptions, and for gods sake if you want to imply that bomber might have been complicit in somethihng...dont do it on their own website, especially where, due to the BS of the legal system, Fin is not allowed to talk about it ie defend himself! It is true that the binding didn't fail, but it is NOT the first time that a Intec Heel has failed. A handful of people have posted on BOL that had the Intec heel pins break, but this is the first time (in recent memory) that someone has been seriously hurt. I agree that the binding (Bomber or Catek or any other) is not to blame, it is clearly an issue with the Intec Heel. 1 (or possibly more) out of a few thousand is not good odds in my book. I've already decided this year to ride standard bails with my 5 buckle race boots (race boards) and use my Intec Heels with my Raichle 413's and X-Bones (Purecarve and 4807). I think everyone here wants to see Bomber dropped from the lawsuit as soon as possible...so buy some Bomber Butter and a pair of TD 2's to show your support --Hugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 well, I did say that Id heard of, and obviously Im not some record keeper thing is...Ive heard of more toe bail releases than intec failures! oh well..its a fast sport...we get hurt. already bought my kit. everyone should Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateW Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 There are two failure modes: broken pins, and broken frames. Broken pins have been reported before by two people that I know of (I'm one of them). Joel is the first person I've ever heard of who broke the frame. When I had the pin break, the other pin held my foot into the binding. I didn't notice the break until I was back in the lift line, stepping. Far as I can tell, one pin is sufficient and failures are extremely rare - I'm not sure about your phrase "handful of people" as I've been participating in this forum for a few years and have only heard one other first-hand account. Anyhow, I don't think pin failures are a big safety issue. I think failure of the molded portion of the heel assembly (the frame, for lack of a better word) is a whole other matter, for two reasons. First, because there's no "other pin" to hold that foot in. Secord, because Joel's is the first case I've ever heard of. I don't see any reason to think that Bomber knew (or shoulda knew, or whatever the legalese is) that this product, which has served many people very well, could fail in this way. So I don't think Bomber (or any of us) had reason to think the heels were unsafe. Bomber is just a reseller of this product, and the product has (or had, until Joel's incident) a good safety record. And I say "good safety record" as a person who a) loves his knees; b) has experienced a pin failure; c) continues to ride Intec heels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Dasai Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 ...if you want to imply that bomber might have been complicit in somethihng...dont do it on their own website, especially where, due to the BS of the legal system, Fin is not allowed to talk about it ie defend himself!<p>It's beside the point whether somebody here implies that Bomber is complicit in something, because the lawsuit itself says it explicitly. Isn't that what Joel is claiming - that he bought a faulty product sold to him by Bomber? When I (or kipstar, or anybody else) repeat it like that we are not implying anything, we are just referring to somebody else's explicit accusation.Like kipstar I also studied law (but not in the US). Without knowing the specifics of the law in this case, I would imagine the general principle is that companies are responsible for the safety of the products they sell. However this would be limited to a test of reasonableness, ie. was it reasonable for Bomber to have known about the risks of the Intec heel they were selling, and, if they knew about those risks, was it reasonable for them to then sell the binding to Joel. That's my (outsider, legal amateur) understanding of the issue. If I had to answer it I'd say that Bomber's actions were entirely reasonable. The Intec system had a reputation for safety at least as good as the alternatives, and was something of a de facto standard within the industry. There is no way Bomber could have, or should have, known that selling the Intec heels to Joel would end up this way. In other words, Bomber walks. Free Bomber! Assuming my (outsider, legal amateur) understanding of the issue is correct, I reckon that with competent legal representation, Bomber should have no trouble defending themselves. Unfortunately, competent legal representation is expensive, especially in the US where legal costs are not awarded to successful defendants. If anybody has a better understanding of the US law in this area, I am happy to be corrected... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yes, I did lump both types of Intec failures (pins and molded plastic) into the same category thinking that they were related. Thanks for clarifying the difference for us. Off to work, Hugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipstar Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 [i have clarified all my messages; it never occurred to me that anyone would read into it that I was accusing anyone!... as per Baka Dasai I am trying to put forth what I recall from law. My mother was put out of business in New Zealand for something vaguely like this... someone tripped on a stair going up to her office; apparently she should have known that the step was difficult to navigate and the threat was great enough she declared bakruptcy.... one way of solving things but probably not the best for the NZ economy. As I have stated before, Boards and More while not a particularly successful company (at least in the world of windsurfing) have some serious cash and it is their system (heel piece) that seems to have caused this problem. Cannot see how Bomber are connected personally, subject to the law test that would usually be applied in this case offshore. ok....clear mai?! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_t Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 I have been watching this thread for a while and am glad to see and will use the other thread to buy the starter kit. I have also been hesitant to post on this because I am not in Joel’s shoes and am not trying to downplay his injury or the accident and have no intension in doing so. I wish Joel the best of luck in healing and recovery wherever it takes him. <o =""></o> I for one have high hopes and wish the best to Fin and the entire crew at Bomber Industries in the outcome of this very dubious mess. I, like a lot of others on this forum have voiced, realize the risk of extreme sports and have the understanding that I am the one that puts it out there on the line and I am the one that assumes the risk of injury and death. One should weigh the risk against the reward, carry good insurance, and hire the best docs in the business (this is what I try to do). Most of all use good judgment in everything that you do. It is too bad that I have required 4 knee surgeries from biking, skiing, and some of the other sports that I have participated in over the years. I do not blame the bike manufacturers for making and selling me a bike that I could get injured on (say from a thirty-five mile an hour plus crash on a steep singe track) or the company that made the tube that pinch flatted or the shock that bent. I suck it up, pay the doc (or the insurance co.) and do the rehab. Life goes on and so do I. It should be that simple. No fine print needed. And yes, I know it will never be that simple again.<o =""></o> <o =""></o> Now please do not get the wrong idea, I have not had the serious leg injury that our fellow carver has had, nor do I know the history or the extent of qualifications that his docs have, but still, ………………………give the system a break. A large part of what we pay in insurance premiums is collected so the attorneys can be on retainer and do all of the necessary litigation when accidents happen.<o =""></o> <o =""></o> Please no flaming, this is just one persons take and I am not looking for votes or trying to pi$$ anyone off.<o =""></o> <o =""></o> kt<o =""></o> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy S. Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 From what I recall, Joel was wearing UPZ boots. The boots didn't fail, the heel did (dramatically). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekdut Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 From what I recall, Joel was wearing UPZ boots. The boots didn't fail, the heel did (dramatically). From what it looks like on their website, UPZ boots have removable toe pieces. Is this correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Just a curious thought that crossed my mind... maybe the toe came out/off first? gosh...is this something that has been known for a while? that UPZ boots might come apart under pressure? whats the reason for a removable toe piece? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 From what I recall, Joel was wearing UPZ boots. The boots didn't fail, the heel did (dramatically). Randy, I ask this in a very serious and polite (read:not flaming) fashion: How do we know that the toe had nothing to do with it? There are several classical case studies in engineering ethics that site situations where a design flaw, compounded by tolerance stack up have caused monumentail failures (picture large damn breaking). Most bindings are designed to use both the toe and heel block to share the loads. If one were to fail, the stresses on the other may be significantly higher and cause a failure. Possibly there was a partial failure of the toe that began to allow more stress to be delivered to the heel. In this proposed case, the heel might fail before the toe ripped off, but it would be the initial partial failure of the toe that was the root cause. Has someone qualified inspected to boot closely enough to ensure that there was no failure elsewhere that could have allowed for a potential stress (over)concentration on the heel? ~tb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Has someone qualified inspected to boot closely enough to ensure that there was no failure elsewhere that could have allowed for a potential stress (over)concentration on the heel? ~tb Todd in all honesty, from my obviously non-expert position, after reading the lawsuit, it sounds like there was NO expertise whatsoever, except that of SUING. the lawsuit calls the boot/heel/binding combo "bindings" and thereby insinuates that regardless of what failed, all were faulty somehow, and again that bomber sold something that was knowingly defective. I have the hardest time staying out of this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 There was some discussion about the UPZ earlier this season...http://www.bomberonline.com/VBulletin/showthread.php?p=64895#post64895 I remember that, Dave, but...the only mention is of toe pads...I never equated that with a removable toe cap? edit..now that I look at the boot, I understand. the toe ledge isnt molded in as part of the boot like it is with Deeluxe and Head...its part of the screw on toe-pad bad idea, IMO. but using t-nuts should reduce risk Im sure so what...is UPZ being named in the suit now too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy S. Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Randy,I ask this in a very serious and polite (read:not flaming) fashion: How do we know that the toe had nothing to do with it? Has someone qualified inspected to boot closely enough to ensure that there was no failure elsewhere that could have allowed for a potential stress (over)concentration on the heel? ~tb As I understand it, they had an engineering firm inspect the entire boot, binding and heel assembly (at not insignificant expense). They determined there was a design flaw in the heel (I think that's what I recall hearing - Joel doesn't talk about the details of the case right now since it might compromise the situation). I don't know any more than that. I also don't know the reason/inspiration/story behind Bomber's recent warning about removeable toe pieces, nor if it is in any related to Joel's case. In any case, its always fun to speculate, conjecture and postulate stuff on the web, so we might as well keep at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 As I understand it, they had an engineering firm inspect the entire boot, binding and heel assembly (at not insignificant expense). They determined there was a design flaw in the heel (I think that's what I recall hearing - Joel doesn't talk about the details of the case right now since it might compromise the situation). I don't know any more than that. I also don't know the reason/inspiration/story behind Bomber's recent warning about removeable toe pieces, nor if it is in any related to Joel's case. In any case, its always fun to speculate, conjecture and postulate stuff on the web, so we might as well keep at it. you obviously have more direct information than I ever will on this one randy. Does anyone know if details of case like this become public after they are decided? I really hope we average joes can get some insight of the details of the case. Once again, I hope that Joel is recovering well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 had an engineering firm inspect the entire boot, binding and heel assembly (at not insignificant expense). :lol::lol::lol: hmmm....guess who's being expected to pay for that? yes, randy, it is fun to speculate. and once we all know the final outcome of this on public record we will be free to make fun of those involved in this "justice" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 whats the reason for a removable toe piece? compatibility with Burton Physics bindings. My Burton Fires have this, and it has not been a problem, but my understanding is that they are t-nutted whereas UPZs are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 compatibility with Burton Physics bindings.My Burton Fires have this, and it has not been a problem, but my understanding is that they are t-nutted whereas UPZs are not. gotcha. seems like the company can just install t-nuts standard then, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.