10 Wheels

Did you marry the guy?

KonAaron Snake 

However when you have market collusion and monopolies, corporations have undue influence in their relationship with consumers...who don't have other competitive options (the underpinning of capitalism). It's really no different than price fixing and other illegal non-competitive behavior that we rarely enforce anymore.

Think Paypal forcing through their egregious amended policies whereby members give up class action tort rights and sign on to offensive policies regarding their ebay relationship. There isn't a viable competitor (and they bought a 20% stake in Craigslist to limit them as an option, which should never have been permitted).

module

...I regret using the word "Forced" when naming this thread. I intended to inquire as to whether the practice of *hiding* legal release language on a check-out sheet was becoming common-place.

I purchase a few bikes each year for myself and my family and I was surprised that two different larger store chains attempted to play this game. I imagine that most parents might just sign the form presented to them in an effort to leave the store and move-on to other errands.

In my case I tend to read all the fine print before I sign anything and I often cross-out and initial any portions I don't agree with on a document. When the store presented me with the document it was all done with a gentle, "Just sign here to acknowledge that we assembled and checked the bike for you". Upon reading the fine print I discovered they were asking me to sign-away much more.

I'm not a lawyer but I do consider myself an educated and loyal customer.

...they not only lost the sale. They lost me as a customer.


We all know that in the right state, with the right lawyer that these contracts would be thrown-out and disallowed by the judge.

I am clear that the intent of these forms is an effort by the stores to limit nuisance lawsuits. But there is also a right-way to present these legal forms and I believe they should (1) present them up-front before customer purchases the bicycle, (2) don't attempt to obscure the language within other paperwork and (3) make sure the policy is consistent among all hazardous equipment that a store sells.

...had I known about the stores' policy before waiting for the bike to be assembled I would have saved myself the time, mileage and aggravation when dealing with this store.


So thank you for all the comments on my first thread here at BikeForums.net. I appreciate all of the feedback from the community.

FBinNY 

The release will not prevent you from bringing a liability suit for any product defect or because the shop performed defective work. Nor will it raise legal fees, since attorneys take these cases on a contingency fee basis, taking a set percentage of any award.

However, it can prevent you for bringing suits for things like failure to warn, or selling an inappropriate bike. The release is usually combined with a checklist, where you confirm such things as knowing or being told the laws of your state, were reminded to wear a helmet, know how to use a quick release, and so on. This can prevent a number of the most common suits or help a dealer prevail if for instance you have an accident because you misused the QR when mounting a wheel.

As such, it isn't an unreasonable requirement, and is really no worse than you signing that you got the bike.

BTW- I don't know about other states, but in NY courts usually disregard broad releases, but will uphold clear and narrowly defined terms, such as "I was shown and understand how to use a quick release" or "I was given an owners manual and told to read it before riding".

Years ago, I was involved with a nonprofit that ran weekend and longer trips for youth. We had parents sign releases, which included things like saying the trips included riding on public roads where there was always the risk of being hit by a car, or crashing because of road conditions such as gravel, sand or potholes. It also stated that leaders were not mechanics, and it was up to parents to make the bikes were safe, and trippers to report any problems. There was more specific language, and we and our insurers had an excellent record preventing suits for injuries sustained on trips and prevailing in the few that went that far.

ModeratedUser150120149

Considering the terms and conditions we have all agreed to in using our devices, the applications residing therein and this web site this whole discussion is a bit funny. Odd?

Secret Squirrel

When I worked for a ski shop that included rentals, we were instructed by our company legal group on how to explain the rental agreement. The agreement included a release of liability waiver. The legal group informed us that even though they signed this waiver, the signed document could not waive the customers rights. It was mostly a deterrent. The customer would be less likely to pursue legal action after they signed the waiver.

Popeyecahn

Thank you for your reasoned response.

walrus1

Some lawyers refuse to take cases on a contingency. Some will some won't.

FBinNY 

That's true, but in the product liability world, just about every decent lawyer works on contingency. If you have a products case and the attorney want's a fixed fee, or to be paid for time, he might be telling you that he doesn't expect to get a settlement worth more than 3x what you're paying him.

I hate contingency fees, and lawyers who work on that basis. But personal feelings aside, if I were seeking a large award for serious injury I'd much rather hire an attorney who works on commission than one paid by the hour.

eja_ bottecchia

Cbad, in the early days of my legal career I handled products liability cases--both from the defense side and from the plaintiff's side.

Reports of "crazy" lawsuits where a plaintiff is awarded a huge verdict are often greatly exaggerated. Even when a jury awards the plaintiff a huge verdict, the defendants will often appeal, getting the verdict reduced by a significant amount.

Without the full details of each of the verdicts listed on that website, we are left to speculate as to the facts of each case. Trust me, jurors don't award mega verdicts unless there is good cause for it. Either that, or the defense attorney was asleep at the switch.

As other have accurately pointed out, the release described by the OP would not hold up in court, it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Those releases are used to deter some buyers--but no court would ever enforce a release that protects a manufacturer or seller from ALL liability.

Also as others have pointed out, watch out for mandatory arbitration clauses; but now courts are beginning to take a closer look at those agreements before enforcing them.

KonAaron Snake 

I don't agree entirely...attorneys rarely want to go to court and an obstacle often leverages the settlement. Companies obviously think they're gaining something by doing this or they wouldn't spend the time drafting and negotiating the language. Obviously we're speaking in broad terms as it does come down to state by state, contract by contract.

rydabent

The people that real tic me off are the lawyers and even worse the juries that hand out huge awards to people that commit stupid acts. Riding at nite with no lights and no reflectors is a stupid act that has nothing to do with the bike manuf.

Chicago Al 

Really doubtful that story is the *whole* story, if it's even true at all. It's from a site run by a firm (actually I suspect just one guy) who is trying to sell you a product to 'protect' you from such lawsuits.

Chris516

I bought my bike ten years ago from a Ski Hut location, when I lived in Duluth Minnesota. I never had to sign any 'waiver'. There is one regional chain and one national chain, whom I take my bike to when I need to have something checked out. I would think any such 'waiver' would extend to parts, labor, and the warranty.

dynodonn 

Just curious.... have these legal releases, pertaining to bicycles, been a recent implementation, or is my LBS behind the times? In my last bicycle purchase, 3 years ago, I did not sign any legal release.

KonAaron Snake 

Your intelligence level and capacity for rational thought is exactly why I want juries and judges making those decisions...and not dogmatic ideologues.

FBinNY 

And if he's on the jury?

KonAaron Snake 

At least he's not the sole member, and there's a screening process, but point is well taken.

goldfinch

Cool. I was just in Ski Hut yesterday. Love them.

John Forester

The above case has surfaced several times in this discussion, without any description. Here's my description.

Johnson vs Rivera & Derby Cycle:
Essex County Superior, NJ. 1993 I assisted Ken Berkowitz of Blume, Vazquez, Goldfaden, Berkowitz & Donnelly, attorneys for plaintiff. Johnson, a high-school student, purchased a Nishiki bicycle, manufactured to Derby's specification, specifically for transportation to and from his evening job. The bicycle was equipped with 10 reflectors (the all-reflector system) and while the owner's manuals for Derby's bicycles described the reflectors and how to care for them they didn't warn that the reflector system was unsafe for use at night and that a headlamp was absolutely necessary for safe operation at night. Johnson trusted to the reflectors and didn't use a headlamp. As Johnson descended a hill with a coasting speed of about 30-35 mph, a car climbing the hill suddenly turned left directly in front of him because the motorist did not see Johnson. Johnson was left permanently disabled physically, mentally and emotionally. The case appeared to be fairly simple: motor-vehicle headlamps on low beam direct insufficient light to the left side of the road to illuminate reflectors to the extent required for conspicuity, whereas bicycle headlamps provide sufficient illumination. I corroborated from my own experience the data of psychological experts that few of the public understand the ineffectiveness of reflectors in such traffic-accident conditions, but that fact should have been known to experts in the bicycle business. Derby's expert, James Green, disagreed with these points and wrote a report raising other points: that Johnson was speeding, that he should have yielded to the left-turning motorist, that the car was moving slowly, that the impact point was on the wrong part of the road; advancing an accident reconstruction based on these points. I testified on the correct methods for calculating and measuring speeds and for reconstructing accidents, showing that these gave different results than Green maintained. Further testimony by Derby's officials showed that they believed that the all-reflector system to be safe for riding at night and that they were mistaken about both the safety and the legal requirements for cycling at night. That is why they didn't know how to write a proper safety manual. The jury found the accident to be entirely Derby's fault and awarded $7 million to plaintiff.

Note why the jury made its reward. The federal government requires bicycle manufacturers to supply instructions about dangerous conditions, including cycling at night. Derby failed to provide such instruction, concealing its absence among material about reflectors. Derby's officials stated under oath that they had no idea that headlamps were necessary, or even legally required when cycling at night. Bicycle manufacturers in the USA, and they don't know that about the use of their product? Managerial negligence. Furthermore, while it is irrelevant it certainly did not help them, they employed an expert who spent a lot of money putting up cock-and-bull hypotheses that were easily disproved.

ItsJustMe

I wonder why the federal government doesn't require car manufacturers to supply information about dangerous conditions?

John Forester

That has long been the prerogative of the individual states with their licensing procedures.

But I can tell you how bicycles came to be regulated in this way. Statistics stated that the consumer product most associated with injuries was bicycles. The really dangerous items, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, were out of reach because they already had their regulatory agency. So the anti-business consumer activists of the late 1960s raised a clamor about the need for bicycle safety regulation. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the United States came into existence, the start of work on the bicycle regulation became the CPSC's first big project. The basic idea was that most deaths and injuries associated with bicycle use were caused by defective design and defective manufacturing. But even when the data were searched for such causes, there were very few. After all, most injuries associated with bicycle use come from falling off. Of course, the Bicycle Manufacturers Association immediately became involved, and presented their specification BMA/6 for consideration. This was a specification for toy bicycles that excluded real bicycles. There was a hell of a flap over that, but it got sorted out so that both toy and real bicycles became permitted. The BMA had two hopes for the regulation: it would stop the importation of cheap (meaning Taiwanese) (rather a different world than today's?) bicycles and it would have nationwide uniformity, so that manufacturers did not have to provide different kits of equipment (reflectors being the big variable) for each state. And, the BMA insisted, there must be no headlamp requirement, absolutely not and never. The BMA dazzled CPSC cycling-ignorant officials with displays of reflectors in front of motor-vehicle headlamps that were irrelevant in the traffic-cycling context. And they have done it ever since, whenever the question of nighttime protective equipment has come up. Reflectors are entirely adequate, so they claim.

Now do you understand why it was a good thing that the directors of Derby Cycle got hit for $7 million for failing to provide the legally required instruction that safety requires the use of a headlamp when cycling at night?

genec

No. But then I also understand that coffee is generally hot. (the last statement a comment on the tort system in the US)

mrodgers

Every owner's manual to every car I've ever owned is full of information warning of dangerous conditions. How to drive in the rain, in the snow, on dry roads, speed to adhere by, how to recover from dangerous conditions such as losing traction and spinning. Seatbelt warnings, airbag warnings. Warnings of dangerous conditions are plastered right inside the vehicle since I've always had at least 1 4WD vehicle that it doesn't handle like a small passenger car and shouldn't be driven the same.

ItsJustMe

The last is also a statement from someone who hasn't actually reviewed the McDonald's hot coffee incident. The McDonalds in question was serving coffee that was ridiculously in excess of anything that could be considered reasonable, had gotten numerous complaints, and the injuries were really quite bad - there are photos. I thought it was a silly ruling too, until I read the facts of the case and saw the photos.