Any chance to sue Rossignol and get somewhere?

yeah dude that is the classic attitude, get hurt, my fault i fell, SUE SUE SUE, hahah fuck you big huge ski company that has helped the sport become what it is, FUCK YOU IM SUEING YOU BECAUSE I FELL
 
You area fucking idiot, and I hope some one kicksthe living shit out of you for wasting the bandwidth that you did with this idiotic post.

Its not rossis' fault that you cant ski. Secondly out of the thousands of binders rosi sells, if one of yours just happens to be defective it doesnt meen that they where negligent.

Shit happens. Man up to the fact hat you alone fucked up, and you alone decied to ski what you did, and only you casued your fall.

Pull your head out of your ass, and do the rest of us a favor and sell your gear and never ski again. We dont need any sue happy assholes in this sport.
 
rossi's legit man, if you sue them you'll just lose, not to mention the thousands of dollars you'll lose hiring a lawyer and shit
 
I used to change the oil in my car all the time, but then I stopped a few months ago because it was hard. Now my car won't run anymore. Should I sue Subaru? I mean, clearly it's all their fault!

But on a serious note, this thread is pathetic. Even if the binding is defective, you knew it beforehand and didn't do anything about it. So basically, you fucked up and it's your fault. That sucks that you got hurt from it, but if you're going to point a finger make sure it's at yourself.
 
Absolutely you could get somewhere. However, you could also end up paying more in legal fees than you end up with. You have the advantage that just having this case EXIST on public record is bad for the company's image, but it's not like it's Toyota or anything, it's a sport, people get hurt. And just remember, they have someone waiting in the legal department who does nothing but destroy claims like yours.
 
It's not rossis fault you assumed the responsibilities to ski which obviously encompasses the possibility of getting injured. Get over it, shit happens. Stop trying to get money from someone for something they didn't do.
 
The binding is not defective in all likelihood. It is much more likely that you need to set your bindings lower. Just because a binding does not release when you want it to does not mean there is something wrong with the binding. In order to win a case like this, you would have to reproduce the exact forces of the fall in a scientific test, then show that the forces which were exerted on the binding should have caused the ski to come off, according to the manufacturer's definition of when a ski should pop off when set at seven. Descriptions like "a hard fall" do nothing because they are subjective. You really do not have a case here.

What you should have concentrated on is finding a binding setting that was right for you. I always tighten my bindings over what the shop sets them at, because I know what I like. Just because you fell and got hurt does not mean it is a problem with the binding. More likely you should have been at a lower setting.

On another note, you have already been reamed on this board enough, but people like you are the reason tickets are high. People like you are the reason one cannot put old bindings on new skis. When I worked in a ski shop several seasons ago, occasionally someone would come in with an old pair of skis wanting the bindings adjusted. Sometimes we would not be able to touch the bindings because they were on the indemnified list, meaning that if there were an accident deemed our fault the insurance company would not cover us. This is not a problem with the insurance company, it is a problem with people who sue.

If there truly is a defect you have a case. A ski not popping off during a fall is not, in and of itself, evidence of a defect.
 
i know this is on the second page and nobody cares any more, but DUDE!! Comeon. It hurts to read this kind of stuff.
 
you got broke off skiing a huge open area. which means you just arent a very good skier. give it up.

even if from the top of baldy. still nothing hard.

oh and what exactly were you doing? cuz the only person i know of that got broke off in a huge bowl was this kid STRAIGHT LINING glory hole like 2 years ago.

so if you were doing that..... no fucking way would you think about sueing.
 
Exactly! If the bindings were set up by a shop they were set to a strict chart that is designed to have the dins below what they should be at, therefore if a binding doesnt release, it is not the fault of the din setting because it is set too low in the first place. If you set them up yourself, you'll get no where unless you are a qualified ski technician.

Put up and shut up, too much of this sue culture in skiing and it is ruining the sport for many people. Especially for indoor and dry-slopes who's insurance is through the roof because of ignorant money grabbers like you.
 
Oh and broken bones usually take 6 weeks in cast, then a week or two to get your leg strong again, then you'll be back on snow.
 
1. Fibia = pussy injury, non-weight bearing bone that does nothing but provide a little rotational support - you could break it and not even know - suck it up!

2. Regardless of defective product...YOU chose to participate in a dangerous activity in an outdoor arena - YOU are soley responsible for YOUR injuries - PUSSY

PUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSYPUSSY

Get over it - you fell, you got hurt - end of story
 
unless you have money out the wazooo rossignol will just make u pay more in lawyers fees and delay the case as long as possible, not to mention its a major corporation who almost certainly has lawyers on retainer.... good ones too i assume so i dunno maybe if you had some legit way of proving defect then MAYBE just maybe you had a slight case but like i said good luck getting over the legal hurdles
 
Dude, my salomon bindings locked up when i snapped my tibia AND fibia. The fucking ski patrol had to get a screw driver to get my broken leg to eject from the ski. But I still know that if I didn't overshoot the landing and I would of been okay. Take responsibility for yourself.
 
I'll buy those bindings off you.. most freeskiers need bindings that don't pre-release all the time.
 
Um, if Rossy was hypothetically producing bindings that don't work as they are advertised or intended to... That's a problem. Hypothetically, if quality or workmanship was the issue, skiers would actually benefit by companies having to tighten their belts on QA/QC.

Lets face it, quality of manufacturing in the the ski industry is pretty dang shitty compared to almost any other industry.

Ever buy a toaster that delamined after a loaf?

Ya, me niether.

My point is that there's two sides to every story.

Would I sue Rossy? Nope. It'd take you 3yrs and expert testimony out the wazoo to prove a) that the bindings didn't work, and b) that their malfunction directly caused your injury. Good luck with that.

And to the dude that said lawsuits are driving up the costs to ski?...um ya, but it's more so people that feel "entitled" that also have deep pockets. ie. 75% of the ski industry.
 
P.S. If it's a spiral fracture - 4wks in a cast. If it's a clean break - 6wks. Good luck w/ your recovery.

P.P.S. Drink milk. Seriously.
 
its funny how your icon is rossi.. but anyway, if i were you dawg i would give them a call, and tell em what happened and see where you get. maybe you could get free shit, maybe not, maybe cash, i dunno. but dont go to a lawyer thats just a waste of monies
 
first off i have no respect for you wasting tax dollars with frivolous lawsuits

but if you're gonna get anywhere get the bindings function tested because if they pass a funtio test you have no hope at all

but you will most likely loose the suit along with tons of money
 
can't sue rossi because the shop that mounted the binding should have checked to see if it was popping out right.
 
only in the US, people say stuff like this,, try to sue anyone they can, they can't accept anything and take the blame.
 
I'm pretty sure you lost the case already, by admitting you found a possible defect and continued using them in the same manner, while knowing the risks skiing has. You said something like "I fell pretty hard earlier that day and they didnt come off". So if I found out you do end up tring to sue them, I will be the first to send them a link to this page, because there's no need for anyones ski prices to go up because you fell bad. Plus in my opinion you are a FUCKING Idiot. Why? Because you obviously didn't check your bindings before riding them obviously. You should always make sure they come off with a force you like and testing it is easy. Step in to your skis, put your edge into the ground and twist, if it hurts your knee you prob have them too tight, and you can also walk out of your bingings and see how much force that takes. We're I live we can hit -40, which means everything contracts and your bindings become loose so you tightin them slightly.
 
What do you mean by entitled? Catering to the wealthy has given ski areas more grooming, terrain parks, and better food. Not to mention high speed lifts. None of this stuff is really all that necessary to me, although I do like getting to do lots of laps on KT-22 because it is so fast. There are areas which are cheap, some of which have great terrain. For all the park rats here, those parks take money to build. Lots of man and machine hours.

On the other side of the coin, wealthy people coming to resorts means jobs on the mountain for young ski bums. Wealthy people coming to the mountains increases the cost of real estate more than lift tickets. Verbier is less expensive per day than squaw valley.
 
RE: Only in America, blah, blah, blah . . .

Yes, litigation is prevelant in America. Yes, some of it is based on frivolous claims. But some claims have merit--i.e., sometimes a large corporation will knowingly make a shitty, dangerous product to the harm of many.

Moreover, the countries that don't have a vigorous tort system instead have widespread federal regulation. This means that instead of letting tort suits keep manufactures in check, you get a huge bureaucratic government agency setting and monitoring its precise regulations. This too costs taxpayers, manufacturers, and the government a lot of money. Except that, when a manufacturer produces a defective product, the victimized and dismembered have nowhere to be heard.

RE: Rossi's "Big" Lawyers

Big lawyers cost a shit load of money. We're talking somewhere between $150 - $500 an hour, not including legal research, investigation, and other costs. Even simple cases require several hours of preparation and pre-trial work. So, assuming that the OP does have a case with enough merit to make it to trial, Rossi would probably spend $20,000 to $40,000 grand for litigation fees, transportation, etc. (maybe more if there are appeals) for case in which they are being sued for maybe $10,000.

Not being stupid, Rossi will either (a) settle or (b) hire much shittier lawyers and generally conduct a much cheaper defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top