Bicycle crash changed young man's life

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------
Fort Erie man in lawsuit tells court of injuries Mountain bicycle had
been recalled just days before

Jan. 27, 2006. 05:26 AM
LESLIE FERENC
STAFF REPORTER

Nathan Anthony Resch's life changed in a heartbeat after an accident
on a defective mountain bike left him brain damaged and his face
disfigured.

More than seven years after the accident on a Fort Erie street, the
now 23-year-old and his parents, Annette and Mark Crayden, are suing
Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd.; the bike's Montreal manufacturer, Procycle
Group Inc.; and an associated Procycle company, Gestion R.A.D. Inc.

Resch took the stand yesterday on the first day of the civil trial
before Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies and a six-member
jury. The soft-spoken young man wiped away tears as he talked about
painful internal and external injuries and the emotional damage he's
suffered since the accident May 18, 1998. Resch testified he doesn't
remember anything about the accident or much of the 10 days he spent
in a Buffalo hospital where he underwent major reconstructive facial
surgery.

Resch suffered severe head injuries, including a fractured forehead
and lower jaw. He said his tongue was cut in half, part of his nose
was crushed and he suffered multiple facial cuts.

The injuries occurred when the front suspension forks separated from
the frame of his CCM Heat bike purchased at the Fort Erie Canadian
Tire store, his lawyer, Craig Brown, told the jury. Resch was sent
flying into the air before crash landing face first on the pavement,
the jury heard.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
or http://tinyurl.com/aaw34

(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=www.thestar.com)












J. Spaceman

 

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------
Fort Erie man in lawsuit tells court of injuries Mountain bicycle had
been recalled just days before

Jan. 27, 2006. 05:26 AM
LESLIE FERENC
STAFF REPORTER

Nathan Anthony Resch's life changed in a heartbeat after an accident
on a defective mountain bike left him brain damaged and his face
disfigured.

More than seven years after the accident on a Fort Erie street, the
now 23-year-old and his parents, Annette and Mark Crayden, are suing
Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd.; the bike's Montreal manufacturer, Procycle
Group Inc.; and an associated Procycle company, Gestion R.A.D. Inc.

Resch took the stand yesterday on the first day of the civil trial
before Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies and a six-member
jury. The soft-spoken young man wiped away tears as he talked about
painful internal and external injuries and the emotional damage he's
suffered since the accident May 18, 1998. Resch testified he doesn't
remember anything about the accident or much of the 10 days he spent
in a Buffalo hospital where he underwent major reconstructive facial
surgery.

Resch suffered severe head injuries, including a fractured forehead
and lower jaw. He said his tongue was cut in half, part of his nose
was crushed and he suffered multiple facial cuts.

The injuries occurred when the front suspension forks separated from
the frame of his CCM Heat bike purchased at the Fort Erie Canadian
Tire store, his lawyer, Craig Brown, told the jury. Resch was sent
flying into the air before crash landing face first on the pavement,
the jury heard.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
or http://tinyurl.com/aaw34

(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=www.thestar.com)












J. Spaceman

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip) This sort of testimony is provided only to
sway the jury and to maximize the size of the settlement or judgment. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me guess. You earn a good part of your living testifying for defendants
in cases like this. What do you expect the plaintiff to do, go in and
MINIMIZE the consequences of this infortunate accident? If you follow the
link to the news story, you will see that it also includes information about
the recall, and the casual way that defective bike was returned to the user
without repair or admonition about any danger.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip) This sort of testimony is provided only to
sway the jury and to maximize the size of the settlement or judgment. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me guess. You earn a good part of your living testifying for defendants
in cases like this. What do you expect the plaintiff to do, go in and
MINIMIZE the consequences of this infortunate accident? If you follow the
link to the news story, you will see that it also includes information about
the recall, and the casual way that defective bike was returned to the user
without repair or admonition about any danger.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Once culpability is established, then it is appropriate to hear from
> victims to establish the issue of just compensation.

Generally this is inaccurate. The case for the plaintiff is presented in
its entirety to demonstrate both culpability and measure of damages. This
is only bifurcated (although hardly worth of such a name), when the
liability of the defendant(s) is admitted.

> Most plaintiffs'
> attorneys, however, prefer to maximize the victim testimony and
> minimize the presentation of fact since the facts are very often
> debatable.

If debatable, not established. Sounds a little logical to me.
Would that opinions were always facts, but they aren't.
Expert witnesses get a chance to demonstrate their immense knowledge, but
they are always subject to the tests of credibility and relevance, in a
court. Where opinions differ, it is up to the jury (typically not trained
in the particular arts) to evaluate the quality of the opinions and the
logic of the presentation.

In my experience at trial, many expert witnesses, full of their own
importance, may offer correct answers, but fail to convince, due to their
personal presentations.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Once culpability is established, then it is appropriate to hear from
> victims to establish the issue of just compensation.

Generally this is inaccurate. The case for the plaintiff is presented in
its entirety to demonstrate both culpability and measure of damages. This
is only bifurcated (although hardly worth of such a name), when the
liability of the defendant(s) is admitted.

> Most plaintiffs'
> attorneys, however, prefer to maximize the victim testimony and
> minimize the presentation of fact since the facts are very often
> debatable.

If debatable, not established. Sounds a little logical to me.
Would that opinions were always facts, but they aren't.
Expert witnesses get a chance to demonstrate their immense knowledge, but
they are always subject to the tests of credibility and relevance, in a
court. Where opinions differ, it is up to the jury (typically not trained
in the particular arts) to evaluate the quality of the opinions and the
logic of the presentation.

In my experience at trial, many expert witnesses, full of their own
importance, may offer correct answers, but fail to convince, due to their
personal presentations.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:

> The injuries occurred when the front suspension forks separated from
> the frame of his CCM Heat bike purchased at the Fort Erie Canadian
> Tire store, his lawyer, Craig Brown, told the jury. Resch was sent
> flying into the air before crash landing face first on the pavement,
> the jury heard.

Interestingly, they don't say whether he was wearing a h*lm*t. Usually
if the victim wasn't, it gets reported as the most significant factor by
pious journalists who have never ridden a bike since they turned 14.

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:

> The injuries occurred when the front suspension forks separated from
> the frame of his CCM Heat bike purchased at the Fort Erie Canadian
> Tire store, his lawyer, Craig Brown, told the jury. Resch was sent
> flying into the air before crash landing face first on the pavement,
> the jury heard.

Interestingly, they don't say whether he was wearing a h*lm*t. Usually
if the victim wasn't, it gets reported as the most significant factor by
pious journalists who have never ridden a bike since they turned 14.

 

[peter]

Scott wrote:
> Maybe I should go back and read the article again, but I'm sure if I'm
> mis-stating the point someone will correct me (;->), but didn't it
> state that they took the bike to have the recall-mandated work done,
> but when it couldn't be done as quickly as they wanted, they directed
> the shop mechanic to put it back together. And, against the mechanic's
> warning NOT to ride the bike until the repair was completed, he rode it
> anyway AND it was on the post-warning ride that the accident occured.

Since you asked.
I saw nothing in the article stating that there was any warning given
to stop riding the bicycle, nor that the plaintiff was informed about
the nature of the defect. I'm sure that there will be more detailed
testimony on that subject during the course of the trial.

 

[peter]

Scott wrote:
> Maybe I should go back and read the article again, but I'm sure if I'm
> mis-stating the point someone will correct me (;->), but didn't it
> state that they took the bike to have the recall-mandated work done,
> but when it couldn't be done as quickly as they wanted, they directed
> the shop mechanic to put it back together. And, against the mechanic's
> warning NOT to ride the bike until the repair was completed, he rode it
> anyway AND it was on the post-warning ride that the accident occured.

Since you asked.
I saw nothing in the article stating that there was any warning given
to stop riding the bicycle, nor that the plaintiff was informed about
the nature of the defect. I'm sure that there will be more detailed
testimony on that subject during the course of the trial.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Scott" wrote: Maybe I should go back and read the article again,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, you should have.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but I'm sure if I'm mis-stating the point someone will correct me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am about to.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but didn't it state that they took the bike to have the recall-mandated
work done, but when it couldn't be done as quickly as they wanted, they
directed the shop mechanic to put it back together. And, against the
mechanic's warning NOT to ride the bike until the repair was completed, he
rode it anyway AND it was on the post-warning ride that the accident
occured.
If that's the case, I contend he shouldn't be entitled to even a dime.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the facts had been as you think you remember, I would agree. But they
are not. The article does not say anything about a warning against riding
the bike. If there was such a warning, it would be a part of the defense,
but it is inappropriate to introduce a crucial piece of "dis-information"
like this, which could completely reverse the discussion. I am glad I took
the trouble to recheck.
>

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Scott" wrote: Maybe I should go back and read the article again,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, you should have.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but I'm sure if I'm mis-stating the point someone will correct me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am about to.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but didn't it state that they took the bike to have the recall-mandated
work done, but when it couldn't be done as quickly as they wanted, they
directed the shop mechanic to put it back together. And, against the
mechanic's warning NOT to ride the bike until the repair was completed, he
rode it anyway AND it was on the post-warning ride that the accident
occured.
If that's the case, I contend he shouldn't be entitled to even a dime.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the facts had been as you think you remember, I would agree. But they
are not. The article does not say anything about a warning against riding
the bike. If there was such a warning, it would be a part of the defense,
but it is inappropriate to introduce a crucial piece of "dis-information"
like this, which could completely reverse the discussion. I am glad I took
the trouble to recheck.
>

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
>
> > Once culpability is established, then it is appropriate to
hear from
> > victims to establish the issue of just compensation.
>
> Generally this is inaccurate. The case for the plaintiff is
presented in
> its entirety to demonstrate both culpability and measure of
damages. This
> is only bifurcated (although hardly worth of such a name), when
the
> liability of the defendant(s) is admitted.
>
> > Most plaintiffs'
> > attorneys, however, prefer to maximize the victim testimony
and
> > minimize the presentation of fact since the facts are very
often
> > debatable.
>
> If debatable, not established. Sounds a little logical to me.
> Would that opinions were always facts, but they aren't.
> Expert witnesses get a chance to demonstrate their immense
knowledge, but
> they are always subject to the tests of credibility and
relevance, in a
> court. Where opinions differ, it is up to the jury (typically
not trained
> in the particular arts) to evaluate the quality of the opinions
and the
> logic of the presentation.
>
> In my experience at trial, many expert witnesses, full of their
own
> importance, may offer correct answers, but fail to convince,
due to their
> personal presentations.

I've handled maybe a half-dozen fork cases -- one went to trial
(defense verdict). In that case, there was no defect. The kid
who owned the forks monkeyed with the stanchions, and they broke.
The other cases involved probable defects, mostly involving one
brand and model. Those settled for varying amounts.

The guy in the story sounds like he was not wearing a helmet
since he had a fractured forehead. That does not go over well
with judges and juries -- not withstanding all of the anti-helmet
stuff we toss about here. Also, everybody claims a brain
injury -- usually a subtle "mild traumatic brain injury" which
makes the plaintiff cranky and forgetful. Or maybe he was cranky
and forgetful before the injury. Who knows. That is where the
neuropsychologists come in with a battery of tests. Interpreting
these tests is like reading tea leaves unless the plaintiff has a
pretty serious brain injury. That's where you get some pretty
good expert battles. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
>
> > Once culpability is established, then it is appropriate to
hear from
> > victims to establish the issue of just compensation.
>
> Generally this is inaccurate. The case for the plaintiff is
presented in
> its entirety to demonstrate both culpability and measure of
damages. This
> is only bifurcated (although hardly worth of such a name), when
the
> liability of the defendant(s) is admitted.
>
> > Most plaintiffs'
> > attorneys, however, prefer to maximize the victim testimony
and
> > minimize the presentation of fact since the facts are very
often
> > debatable.
>
> If debatable, not established. Sounds a little logical to me.
> Would that opinions were always facts, but they aren't.
> Expert witnesses get a chance to demonstrate their immense
knowledge, but
> they are always subject to the tests of credibility and
relevance, in a
> court. Where opinions differ, it is up to the jury (typically
not trained
> in the particular arts) to evaluate the quality of the opinions
and the
> logic of the presentation.
>
> In my experience at trial, many expert witnesses, full of their
own
> importance, may offer correct answers, but fail to convince,
due to their
> personal presentations.

I've handled maybe a half-dozen fork cases -- one went to trial
(defense verdict). In that case, there was no defect. The kid
who owned the forks monkeyed with the stanchions, and they broke.
The other cases involved probable defects, mostly involving one
brand and model. Those settled for varying amounts.

The guy in the story sounds like he was not wearing a helmet
since he had a fractured forehead. That does not go over well
with judges and juries -- not withstanding all of the anti-helmet
stuff we toss about here. Also, everybody claims a brain
injury -- usually a subtle "mild traumatic brain injury" which
makes the plaintiff cranky and forgetful. Or maybe he was cranky
and forgetful before the injury. Who knows. That is where the
neuropsychologists come in with a battery of tests. Interpreting
these tests is like reading tea leaves unless the plaintiff has a
pretty serious brain injury. That's where you get some pretty
good expert battles. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Luke]

In article <43da738e.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Interestingly, they don't say whether he was wearing a h*lm*t. Usually
> if the victim wasn't, it gets reported as the most significant factor by
> pious journalists who have never ridden a bike since they turned 14.

I agree; this is infuriating. By the same standard news accounts of
pedestrians struck dead[1] by autos should note whether the victim was
wearing a helmet.

Luke

1.
Around here (Toronto), easily outnumbering deaths of cyclists by a
multiple of 50.

 

[Luke]

In article <43da738e.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Interestingly, they don't say whether he was wearing a h*lm*t. Usually
> if the victim wasn't, it gets reported as the most significant factor by
> pious journalists who have never ridden a bike since they turned 14.

I agree; this is infuriating. By the same standard news accounts of
pedestrians struck dead[1] by autos should note whether the victim was
wearing a helmet.

Luke

1.
Around here (Toronto), easily outnumbering deaths of cyclists by a
multiple of 50.

 

[Diablo Scott]

Luke wrote:
> Brown [lawyer] told the jury Resch and Crayden, his stepfather,
> purchased the assembled mountain bike April 24, 1998, for $299 plus
> tax. On May 12, Crayden saw a notice in the local paper recalling that
> model of bicycle. Three days later, Resch returned the bike to the
> store for repairs. He testified yesterday he didn't know at the time
> why it had been recalled.


All recall notices I've ever seen say what the problem is and include a
warning to not ride the bike if it's warranted.

Example: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml00/00072a.html

PROBLEM: The front suspension forks on these bikes might not have been
welded properly, and can break apart during use, resulting in serious
injury to the rider.

WHAT TO DO: Stop riding these bikes immediately and take them to the
Target store where purchased for a choice of a free replacement fork or
a free replacement bike. For more information or to receive a free
replacement fork by mail, call Dynacraft Industries Inc. at (800)
551-0032 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.

 

[Diablo Scott]

Luke wrote:
> Brown [lawyer] told the jury Resch and Crayden, his stepfather,
> purchased the assembled mountain bike April 24, 1998, for $299 plus
> tax. On May 12, Crayden saw a notice in the local paper recalling that
> model of bicycle. Three days later, Resch returned the bike to the
> store for repairs. He testified yesterday he didn't know at the time
> why it had been recalled.


All recall notices I've ever seen say what the problem is and include a
warning to not ride the bike if it's warranted.

Example: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml00/00072a.html

PROBLEM: The front suspension forks on these bikes might not have been
welded properly, and can break apart during use, resulting in serious
injury to the rider.

WHAT TO DO: Stop riding these bikes immediately and take them to the
Target store where purchased for a choice of a free replacement fork or
a free replacement bike. For more information or to receive a free
replacement fork by mail, call Dynacraft Industries Inc. at (800)
551-0032 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.

 

[john]

Sandy wrote:

>If you are indeed curious enough, the pleadings and much of the discovery
>materials are public record, and you could go read the basics to form your
>opinion.

Hi Sandy
How does one do that from a remote location? Are there any charges
involved?

Thanks, John

 

[john]

Sandy wrote:

>If you are indeed curious enough, the pleadings and much of the discovery
>materials are public record, and you could go read the basics to form your
>opinion.

Hi Sandy
How does one do that from a remote location? Are there any charges
involved?

Thanks, John