Central Texas Recreation Center Climbing Wall Injury
Posted: March 19, 2008 Filed under: Climbing Wall | Tags: Climb, Climbing Wall, Commercial Gyms, Indoor, Texas, Waco Texas Leave a commentKWTX.com of Waco Texas is reporting a 12 year old girl fell from a recreation center climbing wall in Temple Texas. She landed on padding and was taken to a local hospital. The recreation center inspected the equipment and found it to be in good working order. The girls injuries were not life threatening. See Central Texas Girl Falls From Indoor Climbing Wall
Ropes course injury
Posted: March 11, 2008 Filed under: Challenge or Ropes Course, Zip Line | Tags: Pulley, Rock climbing, Ropes course, Youth With A Mission Leave a commentChemeketa Community College was offering a ropes course for its leadership development class at a ropes course of Youth with a Mission. While being hoisted via a pulley system to a zip line platform something went wrong the participant fell 10 – 12 feet. The participant, who was confined by a wheelchair, was wearing a harness and helmet at the time of the injury.
The participant was taken to the Salem Oregon Hospital with trauma injuries. The incident is currently being investigated.
Reported by the Salem Oregon Statesman Journal at Man injured in fall at ropes training course.
Want to work in the climbing and mountaineering industry?
Posted: March 8, 2008 Filed under: Climbing, Climbing Wall | Tags: Customer service, Customer Support Leave a commentJOB OPENING: Sales & Service Assistant
Start Date: Mid-late March 2008
Location: C.A.M.P. USA Offices – Broomfield, CO
Weekly Work Expectations: Monday-Friday, 20 hours per week
C.A.M.P. USA, US distributor for the Italian climbing gear brand C.A.M.P., is looking for a Sales & Service Assistant to help with sales support, customer service, general office assistance and other professional duties. The Sales & Service Assistant will be tasked with responsibilities that include the following: interaction with dealers and customers, order entry and tracking, customer service, sales support, maintaining customer databases, coordinating sales trips and presentations, and general data management. It is our expectation that the ideal candidate will grow into other managerial duties like dealer management and sales.
C.A.M.P. USA is a growing company that prides itself on delivering the highest quality customer service to support sales of the most technical climbing hard goods in the world. The ideal candidate for the Sales & Service Assistant will have a desire to work in a small business where they will be challenged to apply their knowledge and time to a wide range of duties and tasks.
Interested applicants should submit a cover letter detailing their relevant work history and ambitions along with a resume detailing relevant education, work and personal experience as it applies to the position of Sales & Service Assistant. Applications can be sent to C.A.M.P. USA Managing Director Tommy Knoll at tommy@camp-usa.com.
Vancouver BC, Canada passes helmet law for cyclists and skaters
Posted: March 2, 2008 Filed under: Cycling | Tags: Canada, helmet, Law, Vancouver, Vancouver City Council, Vancouver Police Department Leave a commentThe Columbian is reporting that the Vancouver City Council will soon require juvenile and adult cyclists and skaters to wear a helmet. All bicycles, skateboards, roller skates, roller blades, scooters and unicycles on public streets, sidewalks and trails will be required to wear a helmet.
The article Vancouver city council enacts helmet law states that Vancouver has a cyclist fatality rate is five times the Canadian national average. The law also provided for $5000 dollars for education and helmets for low income children. The law will be enforced by the Vancouver Police Department.
Sound like the money could be also spent on a driver education program. Five times the Canadian national fatality rate!
Alpine Ski Boots
Posted: February 28, 2008 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding, Uncategorized | Tags: Alpine skiing, Outdoors, Recreation, Ski, Ski boot Leave a commentThe ski industry is a little different. Where else can you go spend $600 or more to buy the necessary boots for the sport and then still have to spend $200 or $300 and several hours more to get them to fit? Walk into any retailer who sells skis and you can see the proof of the argument. Every ski retailer has a wall full of orthotics and straps and prices on getting your boot to fit your feet. There is even a standalone store, Superfeet that does nothing but boot fittings. The Snowsports Industry Association is full of new straps, orthotics, daily ski boot clinics and lists of master boot fitting clinics being advertised for the next year.
And we expect the consumer to buy it. It almost appears that the ski boot manufactures don’t care about fit, knowing the consumer is going to have to spend more money to have their product fit right. For most customers fit right means they are not in agony!
My concern with this issue is we are creating a nightmare for the consumer. Based on the “growth” in the alpine skiindustry, customers are not buying it either.
We expect the elite of any sport to have custom made equipment. However in alpine skiing, every skier appears to need custom equipment. Working in a rental shop, that is the complaint 99% of the time: “my boots hurt!” To accommodate the renter, low tech easy use equipment is sold, hoping the consumer does not need a better boot.
Rental shops still thrive on rear entry books, no matter how bad they are to ski in because they fit most people’s feet.
Telemark and AT gear is growing and one common answer why is because the boots are comfortable. You can buy a telemark boot or an AT boot and wear it on the slopes right out of the store. Any orthotic needed is to increase performance, not to stop pain. The same can be said about snowboarding. I’ve talked to dozens of over 30 snowboarders who switched because the gear was warm and not painful.
Not Painful! The adverbs and adjectives we use to describe our clothing should not include the words Not Painful! The middle ages and coats of armor are gone, why can’t we do the same with ski boots.
If we expect people to come to and enjoy the sport, we just can’t concentrate on that small percentage of people whose feet perfectly fit the narrow selection of ski boots currently available.
Want to “own” a ski area in North Central Wyoming?
Posted: February 27, 2008 Filed under: Ski Area, Uncategorized | Tags: Bighorn Mountains, Bighorn National Forest, Ski, Ski Resort, United States Forest Service, USFS Leave a commentTwo different reports state the U.S. Forest Service will be seeking new operators of the Antelope Butte Ski Area in the Bighorn Mountains. The ski area is located about 90 miles east of Cody, Wyoming. Both the Casper Star Tribune and the CBS affiliate online Montana News Station posted the story. The ski area has been closed since 2005 when the USFS took over the operation and property at the ski area.
If you are interested in running your own ski area, you will probably have to show a business plan, plenty of capital (money) and experience in running a ski area. The ski area is operated on land under the auspices of the Bighorn National Forestalthough a search of the Bighorn USFS website showed no
information now.
Probably the most important item you will need, which the USFS may not want is a marketing plan. I don’t know if the ski area has land available for development, but running a ski area based on lift sales alone is a very difficult proposition these days.
Common Mistakes made by Outfitters and Insurance Companies
Posted: February 25, 2008 Filed under: Insurance, Paddlesports, Rivers and Waterways | Tags: Canoe, Canoe Livery, Hurricane Floyd, Insurance, Outfitter Leave a commentBACKGROUND
An eastern canoe livery operation was open during high water after Hurricane Floyd. A canoe livery is a hybrid between an Outfitter and a Rental operation. Courts have determined that because the Livery is in charge of the pickup and return of the guest as well as only allowing the rental of the canoe on one river, the livery is not a rental program but more closely aligned to an outfitter. Although customers rent canoes, the livery controls every aspect of the customer’s experience, as such, the livery owner is held to the standard of an outfitter.
At a canoe livery, the customer pays for a canoe, paddles, life jacket and transportation. The customer is fitted with a life jacket, handed a paddle and escorted to his/her canoe. At the end of the specified trip the canoeist pulls over and is driven back to the rental operation by the livery operator. In some cases, a customer is transported up river and floats back to the livery operation. The canoe livery controls where the activity takes place, the time the participant is on the river, and transportation to and from the river. Most liveries operate on class 0 or 1 rivers, rivers with current but no rapids.
Liveries are mainly located in the eastern United States, usually within 2-3 hours of large cities. Church, school and youth groups are a large part of their business. Most are family run businesses that have been in operation for twenty years or more.
Instruction is generally not provided and rarely requested. The rivers are calm. Sitting in the canoe and holding on, will normally allow you to arrive at the takeout unscathed.
Ten years ago, life jackets where an “add on” – provided if the customer requested one. Normally, customers were handed a floating seat cushion. Since then, the standard in the industry has evolved to giving every customer a life jacket which buckles or straps on, even though most states by law do not require them in canoes.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Livery Statement: In this case, a recent storm had increased the river flow. The river was higher than normal but not closed. The customer called the livery the day before to see if the river was open. The customer was informed the river was high, but still open. The customer claims they were told the river was “safe.” Four customers arrived, rented two canoes for $54.00 and paid with a credit card. The livery transported the customers and the equipment upriver to float down to the livery office. The bus driver reiterated to the customers that the water was high.
The customers over-turned their canoes. They came back to the operation, cold, wet and mad. At the livery, the customers claimed they had lost a wallet containing $600.00 in cash, prescription glasses, and other items. They had minor scratches, but refused medical treatment.
Customer Complaint: Soon after the incident, the customers filed a complaint with a State Consumer Agency. In the complaint, they stated they had rented the canoes 2 days after Hurricane Floyd. While they were concerned the river might be too high, too dangerous or obstructed, they assumed the campground would have checked for these things and suspended their trips if the trip was too dangerous for their skill level. The customers informed the livery they were novices. They did not receive instructions or warnings from the livery.
According to the complaint: “In fact they [the livery] broadly proclaimed we could ‘float back’ in 4 hours. The river was so high that we were over our heads and the banks were under water. When we complained to the livery they admitted that no one had checked the river since the storm, yet they sent us out in these canoes…. They refused to refund our money for the rentals or compensate us for our losses…. They took a chance with our lives to make a lousy $54.00! … We could have easily been seriously injured or died as a result of their blatant negligence.”
Over a month later the customer sent a complaint letter to the livery. In the letter they claimed $840.00 in lost cash and one day of lost work because of a physician visit. The lost work was valued at $200.00. The customer also complained that “no advice or instructions were offered by your representative” concerning canoeing. They also claimed that no warning given about the high water conditions.
3. Documents: The livery’s brochure offers no information as to risk or whether a release must be signed. Another brochure advises that “If you are unable to swim – a life jacket will be available.” There is no risk or release information in the second brochure either. The only notice is about failure to return equipment.
The customers did sign a rental contract, which they relied upon in making their compliant. However, a rental contract is in fact and in law not a contract; it is a receipt. A receipt contains information about the renter and the return of the items rented, including life jackets. At the very bottom of this rental contract, there is a statement about returning equipment on time. There is also a line for the customer’s signature below the return policy.
4: Insurance Company: The customer’s complaint was forwarded to the livery’s insurance company. The insurance company wrote the complaining customer. [Starting the lawsuit!] The insurance company letter said in part:
The insurance company denied any claim.
5. Complaint: Approximately 2 months after the original rental, the customer filed a complaint in the Small Claims court requesting $1,408.00.
The Plaintiff in the Complaint stated as follows: “XXX Campground operates a canoe rental concession. On XX/XX/XX myself & three others rented a canoe for a pleasure trip. Defendant was asked in advance if the conditions were safe to allow canoeing. The stated condition was safe. All four of us were thrown from our canoes into the river as the result of surging waters well above normal state. I ____ lost of personal goods and work time. They were negligent in not checking conditions on river & allowing anyone to navigate the river.”
LIVERY MISTAKES
Basic Mistakes: No properly written release. No pre-trip safety talk. No pre-trip National Livery Safety System video. No information in their brochure about risk, loss of property or that a release had to be signed.
Less obvious with respect to defending a lawsuit, but much more critical in preventing a lawsuit: No thorough knowledge of their insurance policy and no understanding of how their insurance company would react; not dealing with the complaint immediately; not dealing with the complaint when a complaint was filed with the state; knowing the customer was lying; and, basing their response on the “customer lied” rather than focusing the bigger problem.
The customer in two documents states they were told the river was safe. This guarantees a lawsuit and a loss for the livery or any outfitter. No river is safe. Life is not safe. By stating that your river, trip or activity is safe you are making a promise you cannot meet. It might have been safe for the previous 1 million people who went down the river, but the next person who goes down and may be injured and will not have a safe trip. Your promise of “safe” makes their suit for negligence golden. The outfitter denies making those claims. However, something was said that induced the people to come to the river, even after they called to confirm the river was open during high water.
A complaint based on the concept that a livery should check river conditions is rare – and relatively new. Some livery owners inspect the river each day; however, the vast majorities do not. There are definitely situations when an inspection is warranted, i.e., when a customer or third party notifies you of a problem, or if your canoes quit coming down river. At the beginning of the season and possibly after high water, you might also require a check. However, checking river conditions each day is probably not necessary.
To alleviate the need to check daily, a statement regarding your policy should be included in the release, along with language about who owns the river and what is and is not within your control. Similarly, a statement that Mother Nature controls the river – not the livery owner – should also be included. You might want to place a similar statement in your brochure and on your website.
Another complaint is the “lack of instruction.” The customer claimed they were not given adequate instruction to navigate the river. No liveries provide instruction except in answering basic questions. However, this area is changing with the use of the National Livery Safety System video. The NLSS video provides several minutes of instruction that would have helped the customer in this case. Possibly guests should be prompted to ask questions or if they have any questions, maybe even a sign at the check in that asks the customer to ask questions.
Another statement that stands out is the one about the water being over the customer’s heads. Either the customer was under the belief the river was shallow or someone had implied this was so. No customer should ever enter a river with the belief they can stand up in the river. Two reasons exist for this: (1) river bottoms change. A river can be six inches deep one day and the next be 20 feet deep; (2) Foot entrapments. Foot entrapments are a major cause of death in canoeing and rafting river deaths. A person walking along the riverbed steps in a hole and the current keeps them from being able to remove their foot. As such, they can be quickly shoved under the water and drowned. Here again, the NLSS video speaks about foot entrapments.
Brochures: Every brochure should do three things to prevent litigation: (1) the brochure should state the livery is not responsible for any injury or death. (2) The brochure should state the livery is not responsible for lost property. (3) The brochure should state the customer will be required to sign a release before undertaking the trip. Failure to inform your guests of the risks and the potential losses they are going to be taking on is weak at best and leads to lawsuits.
Releases: In this day and age, a properly written release is a must for any livery, outfitter or risk operation.
INSURANCE COMPANY MISTAKES
This is the scariest part of the entire situation. The insurance company in an effort to save a nickel could have cost themselves millions. They took legalese and attempted to use it to stop a lawsuit. A common technique of insurance companies is to deny coverage and provide the upset customers with the information for them to sue.
Fatal Insurance Company Error 1: No one had mentioned a lawsuit until the insurance company brought it up: “That is, if the matter were taken to court, they could be found responsible.” Let’s translate this for the common man: “You can’t get any money from the livery or us unless you sue us.” Small claims court is easy. It is easier still to stay up late and watch TV, make a toll free call in the morning and find an attorney to take on the arrogant insurance company. That is what those late night ads are all about.
Fatal Insurance Company Error 2: “The duties owed you by Livery are to: (1) Exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises for your safety; (2) Warn you of any dangerous condition which are not open and obvious and of which the owner has knowledge; (3) Make reasonable inspections of the premises and remedy any dangerous conditions the inspections reveal.” The insurance company denied any claim. Let’s interpret this as a reasonable man would.
Reasonable Care: It was blatantly obvious to the customer that “reasonable” would have been for the livery to canoe the river and check it out. “Reasonable” legally means what every other outfitter is doing. The customer, however, does not care what every other outfitter is doing. They only care about what the one they paid did as compared to what they believe or were led to believe would happen.
Open and Obvious: To a competent canoeist, a strainer is obvious. To novice canoer’s, strainers may not be obvious until they are caught in one.
Owner has knowledge: The customer believed the livery should have had knowledge of the river conditions.
Reasonable Inspection: It was blatantly obvious that the customer believed it was reasonable to canoe the river.
Premises. The insurance company defined this as the land area being insured, probably only as that land owned by the livery. The customer defined this as everything the customer was upon while paying the livery for the day, the land, the river and the bus.
The legal paragraph quoted above said this to the customer: It was reasonable for the livery to check out the river. Once they did they should have told us more about the river.
The insurance company gave the customer the reason to go to court on a silver platter. While this letter might not afford the customer solid legal grounds in a higher court, in small claims court, they could hold up the insurance company letter and make an augment that will likely win. Because it is small claims court, the insurance company has no liability and will not pay to defend. The insurance company ducked out, costing the livery some money but it could have cost them both thousands.
More importantly, the insurance company told the customer to sue! The insurance company letter stated the only way they customer could recover was if they sued, so the customer did. In fact, they were told to sue by the livery’s insurance company.
Isn’t this the opposite of everything you expect from your insurance company and what your insurance company stands for? Aren’t your insurance companies supposed to assist you in stopping lawsuits, in making sure you do not go to court? Yet the insurance company sent a letter that told the angry customer that they could sue and get money.
INTERESTING LEGAL ISSUES
The customer made a claim for negligence in the complaint. If the judge finds negligence the judge can award more than the damages requested, kick the case to another court, or ignore the negligence claim.
ANALYSIS
The livery dodged a bullet; the insurance company dodged a bullet. Wet, cold angry customers came into the operation after their trip and could have been dealt with then. However, they were sent on their way, still wet, cold and angry. Angry customers, who feel their lives have been put at risk don’t stop complaining and don’t let go of their angry easily. These customers spent six months dealing with the anger. Each time they received an unsatisfactory answer, they kept going till they got an answer.
They never got the answer they wanted, “We’re sorry, here is your money back.” They got a lot more money, but that is the only thing the court could give them. See It’s Not Money.
The livery also got angry. A customer was stupid enough to take valuables down a river and then demanded compensation when they lost then. That anger increased when each time a claim was made, the value of the items lost increased.
Two angry people are now fighting each other. One because they felt they were treated badly, their lives put at risk. The other because they felt someone was trying to cheat them.
SUMMARY
This case is a miracle. The customer, if they could prove they were told the trip was safe could sue for negligence, and probably win. This case could have been settled for $54.00 or less, instantly. It could have been settled easily at any stage along the way, until the insurance company became involved. Any settlement of less than $10,000 is probably a good deal.
- The customer should never be told the river was safe.
- The customer should have been told to leave their valuables in their car and their keys in the livery office. This should have been confirmed in writing in a release
- It is better to have no money and somewhat satisfied customers rather than $54.00 and angry customers.
- The conditions and acknowledgment of the river should have been in writing
- The customers should have been informed in advance in the brochure or website that instruction is not provided; it is just a rental, not training.
- The river should have been checked by the livery if not regularly, at least every time the river flow changes to look for problems, strainers and ascertain the river is still runable.
- The letter sent by the insurance company was an invitation to sue the livery. The livery should have handled the problem because it is their customer. Insurance companies have no empathy and are better at starting lawsuits than they are at stopping them. The insurance company basically told the customers to sue.
Deal with your own problems because no one will deal with them as well as you will.
Videos
I don’t know of anyone making videos you can use to point out the risks and dangers of your sports. Stay in touch with Quietwater Films, who maybe is working on some.
Amusement Zip Line Error in Mexico
Posted: February 25, 2008 Filed under: Zip Line | Tags: Mexico, Zip-line Leave a commentThe Eureka Reporter is reporting a zip line accident in a story Zip-lines mishap called “operator error.” According to the report one of the participants had not cleared the zip line when another was sent down. The second participant broke her leg in three places due to the collision with the first rider, her husband. The husband exiting the zip line needed stitches in his head.
The article then looked into whether travel accident insurance would have assisted, it wouldn’t they decided, looked a zip lines and the entire issue of taking risks in Mexico.
Update on climbing wall accident at Wood River YMCA Climbing Wall
Posted: February 21, 2008 Filed under: Climbing Wall | Tags: Climbing Wall, YMCA Leave a commentWe posted information about an accident at the Wood River YMCA titled Climbing accident at Ketchum Idaho indoor Climbing Wall. A new story indicating everyone has hired lawyers was posted recently: Investigation into YMCA accident continues by the Idaho Mountain Express.
It appears that both parties have gone to the mattresses. (An old mafia phrase for gearing up for war.) The article dated 2/20/08 states both parties are not talking based on advice from their attorneys.
Why do you suppose the plaintiff all ready has an attorney? Maybe because they want to find out what happened? Since the plaintiff can’t find anything out because the YMCA attorney is not letting his client’s speak or answer questions, where else are you going to go to learn what happened? The person you have the most confidence in and one who matches the force the other side has applied…..another attorney.
It’s based on Newton’s Law of Motion as paraphrased for the law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If one side gets an attorney, guaranteed the other side will get an attorney.
Lots of questions in this post, lots of unanswered questions in the article and I suspect the injured climber and his families mind.
Climbing accident at Ketchum Idaho indoor Climbing Wall
Posted: February 19, 2008 Filed under: Climbing Wall | Tags: Climbing Wall, Idaho, Ketchum, Ketchum Idaho 9 CommentsThe Wood River Community YMCA in Ketchum, Idaho is investigating an accident that occurred on its climbing wall January 25, 2008, as reported by the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide in an article Accident at YMCA still Under Investigated. The injured climber Curtis Hoffenbach, 21 had reached the top of the wall when he fell to the floor. The YMCA has a climbing expert to investigate the accident.
It is not known yet how or why the accident happened. Mr. Hoffenbach’s injuries consisted of six cracked vertebrae, two of which were burst fractures. In order to stabilize them, the L8 through T12 were fused together and the L1 through L3 were anchored with titanium screws Mr. Hoffenbach is expected to be on his back for several months for recovery.
The YMCA requires all persons sign a release to be a member.
2008 TAPS Symposium Series
Posted: February 17, 2008 Filed under: Sea Kayaking | Tags: Symposium Leave a comment
TAPS Symposium Series 2008
West Coast Sea
Kayak Symposium
Port Townsend, WA
September 19, 20, 21
North East Canoe & Kayak Symposium
Clinton, NJ
September 5, 6, 7
Save the Dates
TAPS, is excited to announce its expansion to the East coast and the 25th anniversary of The West Coast Sea Kayak Symposium!
East Coast: September 19, 20, 21 2008 Fort Worden State Park
West Coast: September 5, 6, 7 2008 Spruce Run Rec Area
Contacts:
West Coast: Nikki Rekman, nikki@gopaddle.org800 755 5228
East Coast: Ray Fusco ray@gopaddle.org 845 440 3127
Remember the women who sued her date when she fell rock climbing with him?
Posted: February 15, 2008 Filed under: Rock Climbing, Utah | Tags: Climbing, Recreation, Rock climbing, Utah, Wall Street Journal 4 CommentsLindsey Enloe had met Stephen Stinson and had asked her out on a date. Stinson took Enloe climbing saying he had been climbing for 12 years. Allegedly Stinson had not been truthful about his climbing experience or the fact that he was married. The anchor Stinson set failed and Enloe fell, out of love, and into a hospital. Enloe then sued Stinson for the injuries she incurred in the fall.
The case garnered national attention. The Wall Street Journal said “We wonder how many dates she’ll get now.”
The Intermountain Commercial Salt Lake Times the Record listed the case as settled for $65,000 sometime in August of 2002. That was either an expensive date or an expensive lie. Either way, I suspect the costs for Mr. Stinson did not subside once his wife found out that he had been dating and now owed her $65,000. Even in Utah professionals have to be cheaper!
Student suing school district for climbing wall injury
Posted: February 12, 2008 Filed under: Climbing Wall, Wisconsin | Tags: Climbing Wall, School district, Student, Wisconsin Leave a commentThe Janesville, Wisconsin GazetteXtra.com in a headline titled Milton student sues for injury
states that a student injured in a climbing wall accident at school is suing the school district. A “safety strap” broke when she was climbing the wall resulting in a 10′ fall breaking her tailbone. The strap was attached to the ceiling and held the climbing rope. The strap broke after the student had reached the top of the wall. Another student had allegedly informed the school the rope was frayed earlier.
The lawsuit claims the school district was “negligent for failing to properly maintain or inspect the equipment and to properly place the mats. It also claims the district violated the Wisconsin Safe Place statute.”
Avalanche: Man-Made Snow to the Ground
Posted: February 10, 2008 Filed under: Avalanche, Indiana, Ski Area | Tags: avalanche, backcountry, Indiana, Ski Resort, skiing, Snow, winter sports Leave a comment





In one of the most bizarre occurrences an avalanche occurred in the Midwest. During the fall of 2006 at the Indiana ski resort Perfect North Slope. This central Indiana resort was making snow on bare ground, as is common at most resorts. After a night of snow making the staff arrived to see the slope had avalanched.
Not enough research was done on this avalanche but several firsts or at least extremely unusual things occurred during this avalanche
- ·An avalanche occurred in the Midwest
- ·The avalanche was composed of 100% man made snow
- ·The avalanche slid on bare ground with no snow layer below
Ritchey Design Announces Voluntary Recall on Limited Number of Seatposts
Posted: February 10, 2008 Filed under: Cycling Leave a comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ritchey Design Announces Voluntary Recall on Limited Number of
Left Arm WCS and PRO Model Cranksets and WCS Carbon One-Bolt Seatposts
Ritchey provides affected model numbers and instructions for
receiving replacement product
SAN CARLOS, Calif. – Jan. 28, 2008 – Ritchey Design today announced a voluntary recall of a limited number of WCS and PRO model non-drive side crank arms (left arm) and the WCS carbon one-bolt seatposts due to potential safety issues.
Left Arm WCS and Pro Model Cranksets
Affected WCS and Pro crank arms have a forged channel running the length of the outward facing portion of the arm. Due to an out of specification forging at the deepest part of the channel, a crack may slowly form near the midpoint of the left arm. If a crank arm breaks or cracks during cycling, the cyclist may lose control of the bicycle, which could lead to serious injury.
“We have produced the WCS and Pro cranksets since 2003,” said Steve Parke, general manager and vice president of marketing for Ritchey Design. “Of the tens of thousands of cranksets we have made since then, the recall effects only slightly more than 1,500 left hand crank arms. We don’t want anyone to get hurt riding our product, so we felt it necessary to issue a voluntary recall.”
Models affected include:
· Pro Road 130 bcd in black only (39/53 chainring combination)
· WCS Road 130 bcd in black w/ silver machined face only (39/53 chainring combination)
· Pro Compact Road 110 bcd in black only (34/50 chainring combination)
· WCS Compact Road (110 bcd in black only (34/50 chainring combination)
· Pro Cross 130 bcd in black only (38/48 chainring combination)
· WCS Cross 130 bcd in black only (38/48 chainring combination)
Consumers who are concerned that their crankset might be part of the recall can download the WCS and Pro Crank Arm Recall Notice form from http://www.ritcheylogic.com/web/Ritchey~Logic/Ritchey~Site/web/EN/main/LatestNews/all_news/21676/29964/29965.html. The document outlines how to identify a recalled arm and the contact information to receive a replacement. Ritchey requires that all defective arms be returned to its office for replacement.
“We know one day out of a cyclist’s training regime can be disruptive,” said Parke. “If a cyclist doesn’t want to send in the arm and wait for a new one, they can also contact us ahead of time and we’ll send them a new arm for only $5.00, which we will credit back to them after the recalled arm is returned.”
The (right-side) drive crank arm is not affected by this issue. The reinforcement from the spiders lend the necessary strength to the design to prevent breakages. Ritchey has received zero reports of drive-side arm breakages.
WCS One-Bolt Seatpost
Affected WCS carbon single-bolt seatposts were a result of an improper layup method used during the manufacturing process. The deviation from standard procedure resulted in potential product failure and safety concerns for approximately 150 seatposts.
“In September of last year, we were notified of some breakages through a European distributor.” said Parke. “Given the safety concerns with a seatpost breaking, we froze sales of all inventories in early October and were able to track down a large portion of the goods still unsold at the US distributor level.”
Models affected include:
27.2 – all lengths
30.9 – all lengths
31.6 – all lengths with this serial number present on product: G707049. All other lengths of the 31.6, having a different serial number than the one list above, are safe to use.
Customers who are concerned their seatpost are part of the recall should contact the Ritchey warranty department by calling 650.368.4018 ext. 1878 for an RA number (Return Authorization number) and further instructions. Replacement products are in stock and ready to be shipped as needed.
“Ritchey has every confidence in these seatposts. We use them personally and will sponsor the Health Net and Symmetrics professional racing team with these posts for the 2008 race season,” concluded Parke.
The recalls come as a preventive measure in the interests of putting the safety of Ritchey consumers first. Ritchey Design products are designed meet the highest industry standards and the problem was caught early with a limited number of arms and seatposts affected.
About Ritchey Design, Inc.
Northern California-based Ritchey Design was founded by road racer, mountain bike pioneer and product innovator Tom Ritchey in 1974. The company is well-known for its technical merits through attention to detail during the product design phase, resulting in high-quality, reasonably priced road and mountain bike components. Under its Fit Logic philosophy, Ritchey Designs offers a wide range of “cockpit” components (handlebars, stems and seatposts) that help riders custom fit their bikes for a more efficient and comfortable. Ritchey Designs also offers a complete line of innovative products ranging from headsets to tires for professional racers and the serious weekend rider, as well as its line of “Break-Away” travel bicycles for traveling cyclists. For more information about Ritchey Design, please visit http://www.ritcheylogic.com.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Chip Smith, SOAR Communications, 801.523.3730(wk) / 801.597.7515(cell), csmith@soarcomm.com or
Maura Lansford, SOAR Communications, 801.523.3730(wk) / 817.929.8123(cell), mlansford@soarcomm.com
Good Idea, Bad Approach and it Didn’t Work Anyway: Berkshire Ski Area wins lawsuit
Posted: February 10, 2008 Filed under: Massachusetts, Ski Area | Tags: Berkshire East Ski Resort, Death, Law, Massachusetts, Ski, Ski Resort, snowmaking Leave a commentA ski area recently one a lawsuit filed by the parents of a teenage who died skiing at the Berkshire East Ski Resort. Elizabeth Ann Loughman was skiing with her high school when she fell hitting a snowmaking hydrant. The jury deliberated for two hours before finding that the ski area and its employees were not liable for the death of the young women.
This is a sad story in two ways. One, a young woman died skiing and two, a father felt the legal system was the best way to create a change in to keep other people safe. Another example where the law was felt by the parents to be the best way to accomplish their goals, but not an effective way.
For more information see:
Greenfield, Massachusetts Recorder.com: Jury: Ski resort not at fault in teen death
MassLive.com: Ski area wins lawsuit in death of local teen
Releases 101
Posted: February 10, 2008 Filed under: Colorado, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Whitewater Rafting | Tags: Colorado, Lawsuit, Outdoor recreation, Outfitter, Rafting, Recreation Leave a commentSeveral years ago Justin R. Melat of the Colorado Springs law firm of Melat, Pressman, Ezell & Higbie, LLP sent a letter to Representative Mark Larson of the Colorado Legislation asking him if he would sponsor a bill eliminating the uses of releases in Colorado. Accompanying the letter was a copy of a page from Trial Talk, the Plaintiff’s bar newsletter. The Trial Talk letter was from Eric Leaper who decried the use of releases in outdoor recreation programs. Eric Leaper has testified several times on behalf of Plaintiffs in whitewater cases.
The injury that prompted the letter was a church group from Kansas who lost a leader while whitewater rafting in Colorado. The facts as set forth in the letter are as follows: As Church Group stepped off the bus to enter the boats they were handed a release. They were told Colorado law required that they sign a release. The boat captain had 2 weeks experience. The boat flipped and the Chaperone died.
I have not been able to verify the death or the incidence; however, the facts are not that different from similar incidents in the past.
The law firm emphasized the trips were pre-arranged and pre-paid as well as non-refundable. The letter then explored common law that did not allow the release of a future tort. The final paragraph of the letter is well written:
“Future releases are especially inappropriate and damaging to Colorado’s tourism, when there is no prior warning of the requirement. A simple statute declaring releases of “future” negligence that is negligence not yet committed to be void, as a matter of public policy would allow the law to operate smoothly and cases to be settled and releases given for negligence past, as it always has been.”
A quick review of where the outfitter acted in a way to increase his chances of being sued, based on the law firms letter is in order here.
-
The Outfitter did not communicate the release to the group before they arrived in Colorado.
Releases must be given to clients with the opportunity to read, understand, sign and/or reject them. Handing out releases at the put-in is a great way to have a court void a release. It does not give the person the necessary opportunity to read and understand the release.
Many times this is done so customers will not quit a trip. This attitude leads to litigation. A person who does not sign the release is a great person for any outdoor recreational activity. Those are people who read and understand your release and make a decision not to go on the trip. That person should be thanked, have there money cheerfully refunded and helped to their car. They are the ones who are going to sue you in the future if they are forced to undertake a trip because they could not get their money back.
I would love to see an outfitter defend him or herself in court when sued for a refund. The little lady on the stand would state she did not understand what whitewater rafting was and when she saw the river and heard the safety talk, she was too afraid to go on the trip. Then the big mean outfitter did not give her money back. Every judge in Colorado would land on that outfitter with both feet and a money extracting judgment.
If you are not refunding clients money after they have read and understood your release form, you deserve to be sued and go out of business. You should always refund money if someone, after reading the release, looking at the rock or seeing the river, decides they do not want to take the trip.
- By not sending the releases in advance, the releases are worthless pieces of paper against any action by an injured or deceased youth.
This was a youth trip. People under the age of 18 cannot contract away their legal rights. This entire action was an exercise in wasted paper by the outfitter because most of the people on the trip would have the release thrown out by the court immediately.
By only providing the release forms at the put in, the outfitter ignored the only real chance at using an effective release, having the parents sign the form. As such, the only person who could have the form used against them was the only person who died.
Here again, the fears of losing a client made the outfitter think in a way that might have lost him is business. There are many old proverbs that prove this thinking process is defective. You would think they would not need repeating in the 90’s.
- Release forms should be provided to the customer as soon as possible.
As soon as you know about a person, coming to your business, you should provide them with a copy of your release. Besides saving time and money on the day the trip departs, this allows participants, parents and leaders to honestly evaluate the risk of the trip and made the decision as to whether they want to undertake the activity.
This also increases the chances that your release documents will effectively stop some of the possible litigation. If one parent signs, then there is one less person to sue you if a minor is hurt or injured.
Brochures and marketing information should tell future customers that they will be required to sign a release. A marketing program should also inform customers that they outfitter is not responsible for lost property or any injury they receive. Be honest and up front in your documents and you save a lot of hassles later.
The releases can be collected rather than signed at any point along the way. People knowledgeable about the release are answering questions about the release, rather than a guide who may misinterpret the legal document. (Remember statements by your guides can void your release.)
- The outfitter lied to their customers with the statement that Colorado law required the release. (Duress)
The fear of having a customer refuse to sign a release made a liar out of the outfitter. If the Plaintiff’s attorney had realized this, he probably could have voided the release and sued the outfitter. The outfitter would be labeled a liar. There is no Colorado law requiring the use of a release.
Don’t lie to customers. Don’t inflate or deflate the risk of the activities. I enjoy brochures for the Arkansas River advertising river sections one full class above their historical rating. This is an easy way to prove that anything an outfitter may say on the stand is a lie. They lied to customers in their brochure, what is stopping them from lying o the stand.
Second, the heirs of the deceased person could have claimed the release was signed under duress. Duress is being forced to sign a document. Having not right to a refund and being forced to sign a release because the law requires it, when it in fact does not require it may be enough to support a defense of duress.
Fact Summary:
This story relates examples that should have gone the way of the bell-bottom pants and the disco. However, like the disco, which is returning as much as a joke as a fad, these operations still exist. This outfitter should be encouraged to attend state and national meetings to learn the latest in properly handling clients. The numerous mistakes made which the heirs and their attorneys missed took a big chunk out of the outfitters “luck” box. The next time the heirs may find a sharper attorney.
Conclusion
If Eric Leaper’s letter is in Trial Talk, this could be a major war for the outfitting industry. Trial Talk is a highly respective magazine that encourages and supports Plaintiff’s lawsuits. By subscribing you learn the latest and greatest new plaintiffs and ways to win lawsuits. Eric has been making money as an expert witness for the Plaintiffs over the past several years. His letter does a good job of weaving different ideas and legal theories into a plausible argument. Several interesting quotes from his letter are set forth here:
“We are concerned about the present lack of accountability of commercial rafting companies and other outdoor outfitters in Colorado.”
“But we often see outfitters sending inexperienced “first season” guides into hard whitewater rapids with inadequate equipment.”
“The use of these release forms is fraud. As you know, they are unlawful in other states.”
“At present, the outfitter business in Colorado is untrustworthy, to put it mildly.”
“There are organizations of experienced river runners and conservationists (such as our organization” and there are outfitter trade organizations. But there is no organization of outfitter customers. Trial Lawyers are their only advocates. Therefore, we would urge you to thoroughly demonstrate that these dangerous rafting practices violate national standards and that these all-encompassing release forms are fraudulent.”
If Mr. Leaper’s statements were true, then this set of facts would have allowed the Plaintiffs to sue successfully. Colorado state law specifically sets forth that outfitters must use safe equipment. If use of a release is fraudulent, then the release is void.
There are several lessons to be learned from these letters and the facts surrounding this case. Don’t make these mistakes.
More importantly, find out what you Colorado legislator is doing and whether he received one of these letters. Start now to prepare for another battle to eliminate releases in Colorado.
Originally published December 1999 in the Outdoor Recreation Law Newsletter
Copyright 2011-2023 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
It’s Not Money
Posted: February 10, 2008 Filed under: Risk Management, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Dispute Resolution, Insurance, Lawsuit, Litigation Prevention, Plaintiff, Recreation, Solving Problems Leave a commentMost Plaintiffs in the outdoor recreation industry do not sue for money. However, the end result of all claims, litigation or disputes is money because the system can only provide money. Lawsuits don’t bring people back to life, lawsuits don’t answer questions, lawsuits only move money around. Dealing with a plaintiff with the idea that money is their goal, you will end up in court, or at least writing a check. What research that has been done, has shown that at least seventy percent of the time the customer suing you does not want money. This may vary for some types of Plaintiffs, but for your average “Joe,” (not an MD, JD, Corporation, Business, super high income or experienced plaintiff,) its not money that an angry customer wants.
Money is how we respond to people questions, people who hurt or people who are mad. A classic case of you offering apples and the customer is talking oranges. Specifically, trying solving a problem with a hammer when a kind word and a few minutes of listening might do.
Ten Reasons Why People Sue
-
Why: This questions is never answered
-
How: No one will Answer this question
-
Where: Why won’t they tell me where the accident happened
-
Answers: No one will answer my questions
-
Justice: I want justice its been promised to me since first grade
-
Community: I don’t want anyone else damaged by this company
-
Retribution: I want to put them out of business
-
Communication: I want them to talk to me
-
Acknowledgement: I want them to admit they were wrong
-
Revenge: closely aligned with the issue of justice
-
Closure: An element of many of the above, but a reality in the US today.
I was a small law practice for fifteen years and was open to any person who walked through the door. Never, in fifteen years did an individual walk through the door and ask me to sue someone for money. What the injured customer wanted fell into several categories, mostly (1) answers to their questions (2) revenge or (3) justice.
Little old ladies who had been taken by a contractor only wanted to make sure no one else was hurt by the contractor. A friend of mine who had been blown up in an explosion and totally disabled, wanted to wait until the last day to see if his old boss might call.
Attorneys and insurance companies have pounded into our heads that if we are involved in potential claim we are to shut up. If you read the back of our automobile insurance cards, it reiterates what we have been trained in the “litigation minded society” to remember. “Say nothing. Only talk to our insurance representatives or law enforcement authorities.” We live in America by this mantra.
Look at this article from the Columbus Dispatch about why a family was suing a camp.
Columbus Dispatch August 16, 2000.
Family sues summer camp over drowning Wednesday, August 16, 2000 Kate Schott, Dispatch Staff Reporter
The uncle said nothing about money. The lawsuit was not started obviously because of money but because of emotional issues.
Fifty-four questions about what happened. How did my child die? Answering the questions might have diffused the lawsuit. However, the article goes on to say the defendants had a lawyer who was protecting them.
Protecting them…………….. Right into a lawsuit.
Answers
The lawyer for the family had this to say:
The lawyer is all ready starting to cross the emotional and question issues with monetary answers. If we do not get answers, we will get money or money will force them to answer our questions. If we get money, that answers your questions.
“Evans said the money was not the point of the suit. ” There is no way to put a price on his life,” he said. Rather, the family wants closure, to know how Shawan could have gone unnoticed by the adults at the pool. ”
Here is a multi-million dollar lawsuit that might be defused with honest answers to the family’s questions. Of course, there is a fine line to walk between honestly answering questions and setting yourself up for a lawsuit. In addition, that needs to be done before the injured party retains an attorney. If you have stalled the participant into hiring an attorney, your better make your defense wall a lot bigger and taller.
The family was asking questions about how their child died. None of those questions seemed to be targeted at gaining information to use in a lawsuit. However, the Camp’s answers, unintentionally, were structured to make sure the lawsuit happens. Not getting any answer to their questions forced them to the next highest step, court. To get money, No. To get the answers to their questions: How did my child die?
Put yourself in place of the parent. You receive a phone call telling you to go to the hospital your child has been injured. You arrive and are informed your child is dead. How? This question is searing through your mind. How did my child die? Can you think of any emotion or need that would overcome that desire to learn how your child died? Yet as attorneys, we feel we have the right to keep that information from someone to protect our clients.
Knowledge
Closure is not a new word in the American language. However, it is a word that is very important for most Americans. Injured people need to know what happened. Survivors want to know how they survived and others died. One hundred years ago, people were hurt and they died and that was life. In the past hundred years we have learned the answers to millions of questions we could not previously answer. That leads Americans to believe that question should have an answer. Everything should have closure. That is not always the case and it takes time to explain that to people. You cannot expect them to have the understanding of your industry and consequently the acceptance of the answer that you provide. You have experience and industry education to help you understand the forces and factors that create the incidents that cause injuries and death. You also understand the unknowns that affect the business. All of these give you insight and perspective that provides you with answers.
How then, based on your experience and knowledge can you expect a novice to your business how an injury or accident occurred. That takes time. Unless you are willing to put in the time, they will not be willing to understand.
Justice
In kindergarten we started to learn about our rights. Our rights have been explained to us each year until graduation as the basic foundation of the United States and one of the pillars of our success. Since that time, we have rights to everything. The right to know. The right to justice. No one lives with injustice any more. If you customer feels that they have been unjustly treated, that education that they received for twelve years rears it ugly head, however perverted that knowledge has become, we want the justice we are do.
Most people have no clude what their rights are, you see them on the news every night screaming their rights have been violated, now knowing that really has happened to them.
That desire for justice, combined with lack of knowledge on the guest part and lack of understanding on the business part leads to litigation. The desire to receive justice, the desire to extract retribution, the desire to protect others from injustice are issues, almost values that are important to our society. Unless you as the business owner understand these issues, you again will be looking at a checkbook at the way to solve your problem.
Emotional Justice is worse for everyone to handle. For years, we have approached lawsuits as being a money issue based on greed. Yet, the people who walk into an attorney’s office are normally the product of poor customer service. Many times there may or may not be a legally recognizable claim. That is the job of the attorney. The attorney will take that anger and turn it into a desire for money over time. The emotions that linger or the desire to hurt the business always heightens that desire.
And justice is not just an American issue based on law. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice states that for humans, justice is a fundamental part of our makeup. If the value or even intrinsic issue of justice exists, we cannot ignore it when a guest has been injured.
Duty to our Client
Do attorneys do this consciously, No. Or at least I hope not. We honestly feel we are protecting your client. Based on our training and the horror stories of law school we are afraid that our clients will make a fatal mistake that not only starts the suit, but also guarantees a win for the plaintiff. However, that is not the case. If suits were monetary, then the attorney’s fears would be real. Because they are emotional or based on the US theory of rights or justice, these suits are started for reasons that simple curtseys, answers, and honesty can eliminate.
7 Mistakes Made by People who are called Defendant
-
Hire and retain Uncaring Employees: Hire Well, Train Well, and Treat Well
-
Failing Know Your Customers and why they are buying from you.
-
Failing to Treat Your Customers the Way They Want to Be Treated:
-
Examining the problem from Your Perspective: Your customer sees the problem differently than you. The customer may not even understand the problem.
-
Placing a ridiculous value on principles and pride. Principles & Pride Goeth Before a Lawsuit
-
Never know Why you are being sued: Sticking your head in the sand, or passing the problem to a lawyer does not resolve the problem.
-
Forgetting What Your Mother Taught You: If you act like your mother taught you, you won’t be sued.
As the emotion drains with time, the attorney refuels the desire for the suit with another emotion – greed. Even if greed itself will not work, the attorney can show the financial impact the greed has on the business. If nothing else, a large monetary judgment can be turned into justice by equating the cost to the business as punishment or revenge
What happened to turn a customer from a client to a litigant?
At a ski resort there is one brief moment in time when a happy guest is converted to an injured guest. After realizing that they are injured, the majority of injured skiers do not start thinking about money. They wantg help. However, in the mind of the ski resort something did change. That person evolved from a happy guest to a potential litigant. The ski resort goes from bending over backward to get that guest into the resort and having fun, to fearful of the person. The resort will rush food and linens to your room and transport you from one place to another with a smile prior to your injury, yet the guest is now left standing outside the clinic with no way to get back to their room or car afterwards.
What did the guest do to change? What thought occurs, that works it way through the pain that says to the guest, you are now different. Or did that evolution only occur in the minds of the people running the resort?
Angry customers do not sue. Angry ex-clients do.
You can stop anger, revenge, or unhappy customers before they turn to a lawyer.
Solutions
Do not give them a reason to go find someone to beat you up.
Work with your clients to help them back to an even emotional level. This may not always be possible if they have lost a loved one; they have suffered life-changing injuries or their financial future. You can show them you should not be the target of their anger. You can help them direct their anger to other persons or at least deal with you on a reasonable basis. You will not always be able to do this in one meeting, it may take days or months, but persistence pays off.
When in doubt compare the cost of the angry customer, attorneys to defend, and your time to the benefit of turning an angry customer into a happy customer again.
Answer questions.
Worse case scenario, you go to court and admit you answered the client’s questions. Do not believe the attorney’s mantra that clients are dumb and going to give away the company by admitting liability. It will be difficult for to answer some questions with no liability because of the ingrained fear we have of talking to injured clients. Trust yourself.
Prepare your answers as you drive over to help. However, prepare answers, not evasion.
Evasion is so evident it does not work. It makes you look like you have something to hide. By evading answers you are sending the guest to someone who will find out the answer. Since kindergarten we have been taught our “rights.” Those rights in most people have evolved into everything possible. People believe they have the right to know. They have that right with governments they therefore feel it must extend to everything else.
At the same time, why not. If a member of your family were injured, you would want to know what happened.
Treat the people as you want or they believe they want to be treated.
How can we solve these issues? We can answer questions and treat people, as we want to be treated. It will scare the living daylights out of every one of us and send our attorneys screaming to their malpractice carriers, but we may avoid a costly battle over the word “why.”
During spring of 2000, a small ski resort had a number of snowstorms. During these storms, lift operators are faced with two decisions when small children load the lift. Clean the chair lift seat or assist young children into their chair. The obvious answer is to assist young people into the lift. The sport is skiing and it is done on snow.
On this particular day, the resort received approximately four inches of snow in a couple of hours. A mother and her 9-year-old son loaded a two-person chair. The lift operator assisted the boy into the chair and consequently did not clean the chair. The mother and son started brushing the snow off the chair seat. Shifting to do so, the son was moving around the chair. The mother told the son either to be careful or not to clean the snow but he continued to do so. The young boy slipped off the chair and fell approximately 15 feet.
The mother rode the chair to the top where a Ski Patroller met her, who took her down to the scene. Upon arrival, she snapped photographs of the scene and the chair. A ski patroller assisted the mother; other patrollers took son down to the clinic and in the process learned, she was an attorney.
I was notified of the lift accident and the fact the mother was an attorney. I met the ambulance at the Clinic and assisted the parties in getting into the clinic. Mother was quite terse and demanding. Normal emotions for a mother concerned about her son. However, if you couple that attitude with her vocation, it brings fear to a risk manager’s heart. No injuries could be found on the boy; however, he was not communicating and complained of pain so he was air lifted to Denver.
Mother was given a map, given telephone numbers to contact me and escorted to her car. She was contacted at the hospital that night to make sure she arrived. She and her son walked out of the hospital that night around midnight and the mother and son checked out the next day.
The son was sent a resort Teddy Bear and a personal card. The mother was also sent a card. Mother responded with a card and thanked the staff for their help.
The mother called fall of 2001 and stated she wanted to come back skiing but her son was afraid of the lifts. In order to assist in this, the resort volunteered to find the perfect instructor to assist the boy for two all days’ private lessons so that mother and son could enjoy skiing.
I met the family the night they arrived and talked to them for two hours about the resort and skiing. Mother is a tax attorney and concerned that son would no longer want to ski, but the son was a quite excited.
After two days of private lessons, the mother and son were skiing intermediate and some expert runs. They hired the ski instructor for a third day of private lessons. They family left after 5 days and are now excited about skiing. Since that first incident they have come back to the resort two more times. Each time they have hired the same private instructor for a day or more. This last time they visited the resort, the mother and son took me out to dinner.
Whether this was ever, a lawsuit is unknown. However, a disgruntled scared guest has been turned into a happy guest. By treating the guest as a guest and not a litigant, a customer with a possible propensity to recover damages was turned into a lifelong customer. In addition, by coming back to the resort, skiing, and riding lift, from which the boy fell; we substantially reduced the chance of a lawsuit. (People who come back to ski have a hard time suing. On the stand, they cannot answer the question, “If the resort is so dangerous, why did you go back and ski there?”)
Mom and Son are happy and will always come back to the resort.
Costs: two private all day lessons, one teddy bear, telephone calls, postage, etc. Less than $700.00.
Return: eleven nights lodging in a one or two-bedroom unit, Twenty-three days of lift tickets, and two all day private lesson, meals.
Possible damages: days in depositions, staff hours responding to discovery, may a win, maybe a loss. Either way, a customer we had spent money on to come to the resort was lost
Results: Happy guests and no lawsuit. I have three cards from the family on my shelf and a free meal.
In this case, I ignored our liability issues. I just concentrated on dealing with the guest, answering questions honestly or honestly saying, “I don’t know,” and getting back to the guest with answers when I learned them. Getting back to the customer and answering their questions establishes credibility.
Every time you say, “I don’t know,” write the question down and research to find the answer. If you can’t find an answer, explain why. Maybe there is no answer, but if you use that statement, there better not be an answer. Coming back and restating the question and answering the question will provide you with an immense amount of respect and trust. As Franklin Covey stated in his 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, talks about the Emotional Bank Account. He states you can only trust someone if they have developed an emotional bank account with the other person. “You make deposits in the emotional bank account through genuine courtesy, respect, and appreciate for that person and for the other point of view.”
When you make the commitment to establish an emotional bank account with another person:
Dr. Covey stresses the idea that a Win/Win situation is achievable when this type of relationship is established. A Win/Win resolution to any issue can work for a monetary or emotional crisis. However his words fit perfectly with the idea that lawsuits start as emotion. Develop a relationship, work to a Win/Win relationship on the emotional basis and you may not need to identify the financial issues
You are probably starting with a negative balance in the guests Emotional Bank Account. You are the person representing the loss of money, income, the injury or even loss of life. Whether or not you had any or all of the responsibility for the crisis, you are the person who must open and Emotional Bank Account and start making deposits.
Work hard at making deposits in to the Emotional Bank Account. You cannot even open an account unless you are sincere, unless you care, unless you have real empathy and a desire to help. “With those guides you can listen and when the opportunity presents itself, start making deposits.
“By listening, you will here the opportunity to establish deposits.” Establish report. Listen for the opportunity to learn about the guest. Learn about what type of deposits they want. To learn how they deal with the different issues they present, by listening to them.
Habit 4 of Dr. Stephen Covey is Win/Win involves mutual learning, mutual influence, and mutual benefits. Relationships built on a Win/Win begin with character and move toward relationships out of which flow agreements.
Compromise is a settlement and for most people settlement has a negative feeling, a negative connotation. Settlement is not the end of a problem, it is the result of what I was really owed, but I settled for something else. I was owed more, but I settled for less. You do not settle for anything in your life, why settle in this emotional issue. Settlement also means money. No emotion, only money. Once money is on the table, then money is the only currency that can be used to settle the issues. For money brings its own emotion, greed. And few, if any other emotions except love can overcome greed.
Who: You. It must be you or someone on your staff who can speak with authority for you and the business. Sending your attorney or risk manager will only raise suspicion that you have something to hide. You are real, you are credible, and you have the connection to the disaster that raises the concerns.
The guest has always dealt with customer service when there was a problem. Again what changed that moved the business response from customer service to risk management. The guest has a problem, deal with it, whether the room is too hot, they are short of towels, they are hungry or they are hurt.
What if the situation still goes bad? You have created several defenses to a lawsuit by being human, by showing kindness and being honest. The mother and son came back to the resort Mountain. The Mother and son rode the chairlift from which the boy had fallen. The defense: If it was so dangerous, why did you come back to the resort and ride the dangerous device. Why did you ride the same chair lift?
To rent equipment and sign up for the ski lesson, mother signed a rental agreement releasing her and son for future and past liability.
The thank-you cards I have from the mother make no allegations of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the resort. A Plaintiff does not send the defendant thank you cards.
Even catastrophic accidents such as a customer death or accident can be handled to change a customer’s attitude about your company.
Even catastrophic accidents can be handled in a dignified manner providing comfort, support, and answers to your customers.
Your customer is at your business and their spouse dies. Have food delivered. Lots of food. Remember the casserole parade, (as I call it) of the sixties. Someone was hurt and within hours, casseroles were rolling down the sidewalk, some in the hands of mothers, others by kids. Families with problems did not have to cook.
Dealing with the problems, big and small can eliminate anger and many other emotions.
Helping a mourning family receive closure works. Unanswered question nag for years, maybe past the statute – maybe not.
This idea is not something that is person specific, anyone can use this technique. A friend of mine running a community outdoor recreation program had a minor injured on a mountain bike trip to Gunnison County. The program director called the father and told him about the incident and agreed to meet the father at the hospital about the time the ambulance was expected to arrive back to the Front Range.
At midnight, the agreed meeting time, my friend was walking into the hospital dreading what he was going to do. He knew beyond those doors was possibly an angry parent. He walked through the doors and met the father and they talked. The ambulance was two hours late, so both men had plenty of time to get to know one another. By the time the ambulance arrived they had become friends.
No litigation came from the child’s injuries. The program director and the father became such good friends they would meet for lunch.
In another situation, a rafting company in the Grand Canyon had an attorney receive a facial injury on a trip. She was helicoptered out of the grand to the hospital in Flagstaff. The river company managers met her in the hospital and spent time with her while she was there. When she checked out, she, along with an employee hiked down to the canyon and met up the trip and continued on. She later came back and took the entire trip again.
In both of these cases, they fear of dealing with an angry customer and the fear of litigation were put behind the business and the reality of dealing with an injured party was placed in the first priorty. In each case, the results were not successful in preventing litigation, but they had far reaching effects after the injuries had healed.
Money or Emotion
A mild mannered woman comes to the front desk of your business and asks for you by name. As you approach, she smiles and confirms your name. She then hands you several pieces of paper and says, “You’re served.”
Your rush to your attorney’s office with conflicting emotions fighting to surface. Rage that someone could sue you. Anger that you have to waste time over such a stupid issue. Concerned about the financial impact this is going to have on your business. Scared.
Your attorney reads the summons and complaint asks you a few questions and says, “Don’t worry, it is not personal. They only want money.”
Your attorney is wrong. It is personal. It is very personal for the plaintiff. For the consumer or customer listed as the plaintiff, the last issue your customer is thinking about is money. The customer is angry, is walking around with feelings of resentment. Your customer wants justice. He or she wants you and your business to hurt just as they hurt. They want to make sure that what you did to them never happens again.
It should be personnel for you. It is a sign of bad service, unjust treatment, or believing in lawyers and insurance companies too much. The easiest way to start a lawsuit is to protect your self from losing a lawsuit. That seems to be an impossible balancing act; however, it is quite possible and very easy. Worst-case scenario, you appear to be an honest, good-hearted person/corporation on the witness stand.
How you approach this problem, personal, or monetary is irrelevant now, but was critical at the time the problem first started.
References






