Even more idiots on the water


Andrew Linn
 

People suing Dicks Sporting Goods because they dumped their kayaks
http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink


Hank
 

Maybe the idiots this time were the store employees who removed the flotation foam from the kayaks?  Wonder if the poked holes in the shell using those screwdrivers?

Hank

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Andrew Linn <alinn@...> wrote:
People suing Dicks Sporting Goods because they dumped their kayaks
http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink







Andrew Linn
 

That's one take on it. I looked at a couple videos and reviews of the Old Town Trip 10 kayaks and saw nothing one way or the other about foam flotation - nothing in Old Town's promos about them, either. Without proof one way or the other, I am going to look to other sources.

The employees said the foam was for shipping. It might be. If it was, then reaching in and sticking it with a screwdriver would be an easy and acceptable way of getting a piece of foam out of a small space. If they had to gouge and dig, that makes me think the foam was glued in. That the injured parties claim the employees "proceeded to remove the squares from each kayak with a screwdriver and a knife" would not be unexpected or uncommon in a lawsuit - you have to make yourself look good.

I am biased against the injured parties because the Old Town Trip 10 is a fishing/flat water kayak. The Santiam is not considered flat water - in fact, the man was swept into "class II rapids" (if I recall, class II isn't much, but it's not flat, either.)

Yeah, so I don't know. Did the employees damage the kayaks removing the foam? Was the foam for shipping or flotation? Of less importance is the question "Were the kayaks loaded appropriately for the conditions? Were they the correct kayaks for the conditions?"

My opinion - and I ain't no lawyer - is if the employees damaged the kayaks - it's the fault of Dicks. If the people used a piece of outdoor equipment in an unsafe manner in an inherently risky activity, it's on them.

(this article in the Statesman Journal has slightly more information)
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2018/05/08/dicks-sporting-goods-sued-after-new-kayaks-capsize-santiam-river/587458002/

On 5/9/2018 8:17 AM, Hank wrote:
Maybe the idiots this time were the store employees who removed the flotation foam from the kayaks?  Wonder if the poked holes in the shell using those screwdrivers?

Hank

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Andrew Linn <alinn@... <mailto:alinn@...>> wrote:

People suing Dicks Sporting Goods because they dumped their kayaks
http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink
<http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink>


 

Sounds like there were a couple of numbskulls at the Salem Dick's. <sigh> Old Town used to be a fine company, now they're selling el cheapo plastic kayaks whose flotation can be mistaken for packing foam. <sigh>

But did the purchasers ask the Dick's idiots to remove the flotation?

On 5/9/2018 6:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
People suing Dicks Sporting Goods because they dumped their kayaks
http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink
--
John (jkohnen@...)
It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull. (H. L. Mencken)


 

Be careful who you're selling stuff to. ;o)

"Orrio, a former Marion County deputy district attorney, and McCallum decided to try the kayaks for the first time and launched into the Santiam River near Mehama."

The articles make it sound like the foam was structural as well as flotation, or that's what the plaintiffs are claiming. I think there were a bunch of idiots involved, on both sides. <sigh>

On 5/9/2018 8:53 AM, Andrew wrote:
...
I am biased against the injured parties because the Old Town Trip 10 is a fishing/flat water kayak. The Santiam is not considered flat water - in fact, the man was swept into "class II rapids" (if I recall, class II isn't much, but it's not flat, either.)
Yeah, so I don't know. Did the employees damage the kayaks removing the foam? Was the foam for shipping or flotation? Of less importance is the question "Were the kayaks loaded appropriately for the conditions? Were they the correct kayaks for the conditions?"
My opinion - and I ain't no lawyer - is if the employees damaged the kayaks - it's the fault of Dicks. If the people used a piece of outdoor equipment in an unsafe manner in an inherently risky activity, it's on them.
(this article in the Statesman Journal has slightly more information)
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2018/05/08/dicks-sporting-goods-sued-after-new-kayaks-capsize-santiam-river/587458002/
--
John (jkohnen@...)
Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man. (Robert G. Ingersoll)


Hank
 

From what I read the purchasers did not know why it was in there and apparently the clerks didn't know either. When I first got a sea kayak I did not know about the foam in the bow.  Took it to a class in a pool on rolling techniques where they had a big sign to remove any flotation material from your kayak.  Kind of embarrassing as my kayak would not sink.  LOL  They were nice enough to not ask if I had a reading problem.

Hank

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:48 PM, John Kohnen <jkohnen@...> wrote:
Sounds like there were a couple of numbskulls at the Salem Dick's. <sigh> Old Town used to be a fine company, now they're selling el cheapo plastic kayaks whose flotation can be mistaken for packing foam. <sigh>

But did the purchasers ask the Dick's idiots to remove the flotation?

On 5/9/2018 6:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
People suing Dicks Sporting Goods because they dumped their kayaks
http://katu.com/news/local/salem-residents-sue-dicks-sporting-goods-for-455k-after-kayaks-sink


--
John (jkohnen@...)
It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull. (H. L. Mencken)






Electri-Cal
 

Have no fear, we all know the Lawyers on both sides are having a great time, and are somewhere in this. Former district attorney, hah again !!   Someplace on the instructions, or set up paperwork is -- or should be  -- the advice to remove (or not) that foam in the bows, or under the seat in small rowboats.  Saying that, most sales persons want that sale bad enough that they avoid asking about experience.  “Easy to do”, everybodys getting these for summer fun, huh.  

 

The first launch in running stream water ??  Not so bright there either, even with experienced kayakers, does it sound sane to launch a new unfamiliar boat in running water.  I would liken it to me riding my scooter for the first time in the rain on an unfamiliar back road.  At least I kept that similarity idea in daylight !!

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: John Kohnen
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 2:58 PM
To: oregoncoots@groups.io
Subject: Re: [oregoncoots] Even more idiots on the water

 

Be careful who you're selling stuff to. ;o)

 

"Orrio, a former Marion County deputy district attorney, and McCallum

decided to try the kayaks for the first time and launched into the

Santiam River near Mehama."

 

The articles make it sound like the foam was structural as well as

flotation, or that's what the plaintiffs are claiming. I think there

were a bunch of idiots involved, on both sides. <sigh>

 

On 5/9/2018 8:53 AM, Andrew wrote:

> ...

> I am biased against the injured parties because the Old Town Trip 10 is

> a fishing/flat water kayak. The Santiam is not considered flat water -

> in fact, the man was swept into "class II rapids" (if I recall, class II

> isn't much, but it's not flat, either.)

>

> Yeah, so I don't know. Did the employees damage the kayaks removing the

> foam? Was the foam for shipping or flotation? Of less importance is the

> question "Were the kayaks loaded appropriately for the conditions? Were

> they the correct kayaks for the conditions?"

>

> My opinion - and I ain't no lawyer - is if the employees damaged the

> kayaks - it's the fault of Dicks. If the people used a piece of outdoor

> equipment in an unsafe manner in an inherently risky activity, it's on

> them.

>

> (this article in the Statesman Journal has slightly more information)

> https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2018/05/08/dicks-sporting-goods-sued-after-new-kayaks-capsize-santiam-river/587458002/

 

--

John (jkohnen@...)

Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for

the mind of an honest man. (Robert G. Ingersoll)