|
avalon420
Aug 16, 2010, 5:38 AM
Post #51 of 89
(6210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 281
|
I wonde if our guide plate style belay devices are ever load tested in their auto block mode before we get them? Probably not mine I'guess, Gi-Gi & Ghost are both made by Kong. I'm gonna" DIEEEEEEE!
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 16, 2010, 6:40 AM
Post #52 of 89
(6196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
whipper wrote: Moose, you have really picked a bone with this issue....I feel like it has been all in the name of him trying to inform us of the issue....Why dont you quite being so hostile, I think we can all make our own opinions at this point.
Yes, I have. For what it's worth, that was my last post to him, and believe me, I wasn't being hostile. The only issue presented is that Kong is guilty and deserve our boycott. When some one calls all to arms, they need have everything ironed out.
ClimbOn
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Aug 16, 2010, 8:20 AM
Post #53 of 89
(6185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
nickfromwi wrote: We collectively have a very good idea of what happened here. A ring that Kong somehow was dealing was used in a way that it was designed to be used. In a completely normal (or maybe even more gentle than normal) situation the ring broke.
I say it again: As long as you or the other folks rallying against kong cant proof that the ring was infact a kong ring, it is not a kong ring.
There are indications that kong could be involved in that - yes, i give you that, but indictaions are not a proof! There are also indications that Elvis is still alive, yet most people tend to believe that he is dead.
Also you are saying that the ring was used in the way it was intend to be used.
This might simply not be true!
The ring (even the marked ones) does not have any certification whatssoever! It is not certified as part of a PSE, it is not certified by CE, UIAA, OSHA or whatever certification bodies you have for height work equipment.
The ring - no matter who made it - should have never been used in the way it was used.
If sherril went to whatever manufacturer it was and said "we need rings for PSE" and the manufacterer said "Here. use these. They are good for that!" then you might have a case, but if they just bought some random rings without indicating wether they want to use them as dog leashes or cock rings, then the manufacturer is not to blame. In this case it would be fully sherrils fault!
Now i am not trying to defend kong, or even rally against sherril (i neither have a positive conncetions with kong, nor a negative one with sherril), i amt just rying to explkain that this whole situation might be much more complicated than you seem to understand.
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
MS1
Aug 16, 2010, 1:11 PM
Post #54 of 89
(6157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2009
Posts: 560
|
treenail wrote: Proving something 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can be easier sometimes than others. Making the case in the court of public opinion is what's happening here.
In a civil case, the burden of proof is proof by preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.
treenail wrote: There is a lot of conjecture about the source of the rings. With enough CSI work it would be shown and documented 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they were really Kong's rings. It might take complex metallurgical tests to absolutely prove their source but I'm confident that it could be done... Kong let the ball drop...bad pun...and, as a result, a climber was injured.
These two statements contradict each other; until we have good reason to think it was a Kong ring, and that it was being used within its specifications, there is no reason to think that Kong did anything wrong.
treenail wrote: Sherrill stepped up and took a financial hit but gained huge integrity points by replacing ANY unmarked rings, no matter if they were purchased from Sherrill or not. I tip my helmet to Sherrill!
That's nice of them, but not really relevant to whether Kong should be liable to anyone.
treenail wrote: When Kong made an offer of $7k/$9k they opened themselves up to a huge potential for future lawsuits. A deep-pocket trial attorney would easily make a case that this is an admission of guilt. This isn't what Jay has wanted or expected though.
Actually, most jurisdictions have a rule of evidence that bars plaintiffs from trying to prove defendant liability based on prior offers of settlement. See, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Most lawsuits are settled because taking them to court is murderously expensive; it doesn't necessarily mean the case was meritorious.
treenail wrote: Kong's published replies about the tree climbing competition not being an accepted use of their product is legal dodging and makes their case even weaker in this court of public opinion. Tree climbing comps are pretty reflective of the work-a-day world of the arborist. This certainly has more reality than NASCAR or F1 racing!
But Kong's point is that it isn't their fault if arborists buy a product designed for a particular rock climbing purpose and use it in a way they have never claimed is safe. If I loan you my shoelace, and you use it as a prusik loop, and it snaps because it isn't rated over twenty pounds, am I at fault?
Until I have good reason to believe that a Kong product, being used as intended, was the reason for this accident, the company seems quite blameless to me.
|
|
|
|
|
kjaking
Aug 16, 2010, 2:06 PM
Post #55 of 89
(6140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2009
Posts: 35
|
Sounds like we need pictures of mangled gear, and pictures of the setup that mangled it. "Used as intended" is ambiguous, especially when we know this is a homemade, modified rig.
|
|
|
|
|
rschap
Aug 17, 2010, 12:53 AM
Post #56 of 89
(6071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 592
|
jt512 wrote: rschap wrote: I’m sorry to hear about your friend but shit happens. If it was negligence on the part of the manufacturer I would care but sometimes things break and people get hurt that’s why we have a backup. The space shuttle is the most certified craft man has ever made and it still blew up twice. You're an idiot.
I can't tell you how little that means to me coming from you.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Aug 17, 2010, 3:18 AM
Post #57 of 89
(6048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
rschap wrote: jt512 wrote: rschap wrote: I’m sorry to hear about your friend but shit happens. If it was negligence on the part of the manufacturer I would care but sometimes things break and people get hurt that’s why we have a backup. The space shuttle is the most certified craft man has ever made and it still blew up twice. You're an idiot. I can't tell you how little that means to me coming from you.
According to the law of "takes one to know one," I do believe you complimented Mr. JT512.
|
|
|
|
|
technogeekery
Aug 17, 2010, 5:16 AM
Post #58 of 89
(6032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 146
|
qwert wrote: ... if they just bought some random rings without indicating wether they want to use them as dog leashes or cock rings... qwert 
nickfromwi, hope your mate is recovering well. Appreciate your intent is good (keeping people safe) but I also have issues with wholesale badmouthing of any manufacturer until truly strong evidence is present. And the evidence you are presenting might be suggestive, but its nowhere near conclusive, and not enough to trash the reputation of a longstanding manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
nickfromwi
Aug 17, 2010, 6:07 AM
Post #59 of 89
(6023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 8
|
MS1 wrote: ...until we have good reason to think it was a Kong ring, and that it was being used within its specifications, there is no reason to think that Kong did anything wrong....
This is why the tree guys came here in the first place. We know that this is a kong-handled (maybe made by someone else, but it is their child) ring and that it was being used properly.
These rings are very precious to tree guys. They are important to us and there aren't very many places to get them. A few years ago I could count all the places in the country where one could obtain them on one hand. We weren't a big enough market for someone to make just to suit us.
Now it's another story. There are quite a few places to get them.
We know this ring came from Sherill (Jay said so and there's no reason to doubt him). We know that ring (according to sherrill) came through Kong.
Some of y'all are taking the approach of, "well it coulda came from anywhere. It coulda been made by anyone. Maybe he bought it at the gas-station, maybe he made it in his garage, maybe he found it in the street."
It came from Sherrill.
So for a tree guy who knows where it came from and knows exactly how it was being used and that it was WELL within what it should have been able to handle, I know something very wrong happened.
Right now it's looking to me that Kong is at fault. It is entirely possible that Sherrill knowingly bought crap ring from Kong or someone else, then passed those rings on to us, then lied about where the rings came from. If that is the case, then shame on them and it's time to redirect all this energy toward them.
But right now they are coming right out and saying it wasn't them and the rings did come from Kong (again- they may've been made by someone else).
So that leaves me back to where we started.
Stay away from Kong gear.
love
nick
|
|
|
|
|
ghisino
Aug 17, 2010, 9:04 AM
Post #60 of 89
(6012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 249
|
treenail wrote: When Kong made an offer of $7k/$9k they opened themselves up to a huge potential for future lawsuits. A deep-pocket trial attorney would easily make a case that this is an admission of guilt.
Not necessarily.
Even if they genuinely believe they're not guilty, they still might see this as the cheapest option to get out of this shit quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Aug 18, 2010, 3:43 AM
Post #61 of 89
(5944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
Regardless of the source of said gear, I'm still having a hard time with this "failure: without more of a description and pictures.
The failure of the ring was supposed to be on maybe 3 times bodyweight? I'm having a hard time picturing how a SOLID ring can completely blow apart at those loads without something being obviously wrong with it. An open gate carabiner is typically rated greater than 6kN.
More details on the failure are needed frankly.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Aug 18, 2010, 11:21 PM
Post #62 of 89
(5872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
nickfromwi wrote: We know this ring came from Sherill (Jay said so and there's no reason to doubt him). We know that ring (according to sherrill) came through Kong.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know where Sherill gets Kong gear? Do they buy it directly from Kong Italy, or do they buy it from Liberty Mountain (the U.S. climbing distributor) or U.S. Rigging Supply (Kong's U.S. "Work & Rescue Equipment" distributor)?
I'm guessing it would be U.S. Rigging supply as they deal in goods specifically for tree guys (they even have an Arborist catalog) and appear to sell a wide variety of aluminum and steel rings.
So when Sherill says they got the box through Kong, do they mean the box came direct from Kong-Italy, or do they mean the box came from Kong's U.S. distributor?
PS - Absent information about a settlement or something similar, it's really bad form to assume that Kong's offer of $$ equals responsibility. That attitude only encourages companies to never, ever step-up and act charitably out of fear that charitable acts will make them appear responsible.
If we want companies to "do the right thing," then we can't punish them when they do.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Aug 18, 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #63 of 89
(5864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
Maybe I missed it but if 2 rings were used, if only one blew how did it not hold?
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Aug 19, 2010, 12:52 AM
Post #64 of 89
(5848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
mr_rogers wrote: nickfromwi wrote: We know this ring came from Sherill (Jay said so and there's no reason to doubt him). We know that ring (according to sherrill) came through Kong. Out of curiosity, does anyone know where Sherill gets Kong gear? Do they buy it directly from Kong Italy, or do they buy it from Liberty Mountain (the U.S. climbing distributor) or U.S. Rigging Supply (Kong's U.S. "Work & Rescue Equipment" distributor)? I'm guessing it would be U.S. Rigging supply as they deal in goods specifically for tree guys (they even have an Arborist catalog) and appear to sell a wide variety of aluminum and steel rings. So when Sherill says they got the box through Kong, do they mean the box came direct from Kong-Italy, or do they mean the box came from Kong's U.S. distributor? PS - Absent information about a settlement or something similar, it's really bad form to assume that Kong's offer of $$ equals responsibility. That attitude only encourages companies to never, ever step-up and act charitably out of fear that charitable acts will make them appear responsible.
If we want companies to "do the right thing," then we can't punish them when they do.
Well said
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Aug 20, 2010, 3:40 PM
Post #65 of 89
(5789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
This is a post that Tobe Sherrill made on the TreeBuzz thread.
All,
I have spoken a fair amount on this matter and against the direction of legal representation. We sincerely regret having sold rings supplied by Kong SPA of Italy, shipped by Kong and in Kong marked boxes. It is absolutely certain that we (as a reseller) were not alone.
To date SherrillTree has expended untold time and energy as well as dollars performing a recall and without any support or direction from the manufacturer (financial or otherwise). Their silence is truly stunning.
I too will soon try and contact the company's owner again to see where he wants this matter to end/begin.
Will be back.
Be safe
"supplied/shipped/marked" seems like really solid proof that the rings came from Kong.
Knowing Tobe Sherrill and the way his company operates there is no way that I would ever believe that 'just any ol' rings' would have been ordered. Since Tobe is well aware of the requirements of ANSI Z133 which requires 5k# strength for any life support equipment I am confident that this is the specification that would have been presented to Kong.
Kong apparently doesn't do any sort of batch or proof testing of their materials. As a result a climber was injured but was very lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 20, 2010, 4:06 PM
Post #66 of 89
(5778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
treenail wrote: This is a post that Tobe Sherrill made on the TreeBuzz thread. All, I have spoken a fair amount on this matter and against the direction of legal representation. We sincerely regret having sold rings supplied by Kong SPA of Italy, shipped by Kong and in Kong marked boxes. It is absolutely certain that we (as a reseller) were not alone. To date SherrillTree has expended untold time and energy as well as dollars performing a recall and without any support or direction from the manufacturer (financial or otherwise). Their silence is truly stunning. I too will soon try and contact the company's owner again to see where he wants this matter to end/begin. Will be back. Be safe "supplied/shipped/marked" seems like really solid proof that the rings came from Kong. Knowing Tobe Sherrill and the way his company operates there is no way that I would ever believe that 'just any ol' rings' would have been ordered. Since Tobe is well aware of the requirements of ANSI Z133 which requires 5k# strength for any life support equipment I am confident that this is the specification that would have been presented to Kong. Kong apparently doesn't do any sort of batch or proof testing of their materials. As a result a climber was injured but was very lucky.
Was this device (ring ) had a ANSI Z133 certification or stamp any where on it ?
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Aug 20, 2010, 4:19 PM
Post #67 of 89
(5766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
ANSI=American National Standards Institute
ANSI does not certify or approve anything.
If you have more questions about ANSI and Z133 standard which is the one that applies to arborists google will answer them better than I will.
The rings were unmarked.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 20, 2010, 4:23 PM
Post #68 of 89
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
treenail wrote: This is a post that Tobe Sherrill made on the TreeBuzz thread. All, I have spoken a fair amount on this matter and against the direction of legal representation. We sincerely regret having sold rings supplied by Kong SPA of Italy, shipped by Kong and in Kong marked boxes. It is absolutely certain that we (as a reseller) were not alone. To date SherrillTree has expended untold time and energy as well as dollars performing a recall and without any support or direction from the manufacturer (financial or otherwise). Their silence is truly stunning. I too will soon try and contact the company's owner again to see where he wants this matter to end/begin. Will be back. Be safe "supplied/shipped/marked" seems like really solid proof that the rings came from Kong. Knowing Tobe Sherrill and the way his company operates there is no way that I would ever believe that 'just any ol' rings' would have been ordered. Since Tobe is well aware of the requirements of ANSI Z133 which requires 5k# strength for any life support equipment I am confident that this is the specification that would have been presented to Kong. Kong apparently doesn't do any sort of batch or proof testing of their materials. As a result a climber was injured but was very lucky.
treenail wrote: This is a post that Tobe Sherrill made on the TreeBuzz thread. All, I have spoken a fair amount on this matter and against the direction of legal representation. We sincerely regret having sold rings supplied by Kong SPA of Italy, shipped by Kong and in Kong marked boxes. It is absolutely certain that we (as a reseller) were not alone. To date SherrillTree has expended untold time and energy as well as dollars performing a recall and without any support or direction from the manufacturer (financial or otherwise). Their silence is truly stunning. I too will soon try and contact the company's owner again to see where he wants this matter to end/begin. Will be back. Be safe "supplied/shipped/marked" seems like really solid proof that the rings came from Kong. Knowing Tobe Sherrill and the way his company operates there is no way that I would ever believe that 'just any ol' rings' would have been ordered. Since Tobe is well aware of the requirements of ANSI Z133 which requires 5k# strength for any life support equipment I am confident that this is the specification that would have been presented to Kong. Kong apparently doesn't do any sort of batch or proof testing of their materials. As a result a climber was injured but was very lucky.
The above may well be true. The question still stands though, who put the unmarked ring on the bridge of Jay's harness.
Contrary to what the video from nickfromwi represents, the ring in question was an unmarked, common looking ring without any markings from Kong or any other company.
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Aug 20, 2010, 5:07 PM
Post #69 of 89
(5749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Moose droppings is a perfect name for you. You revel in trying to play devils advocate. Pffft!
It IS true, Tobe wrote that. Go back and find out for yourself.
I don't think that it makes a difference if Jay put the rings on his bridge or not. The ring broke and was being used in a manner that has become standard practice for arborists.
Contrast how Kong has dealt with this issue to how Petzl dealt with the buttons on the metal sleeved Am'D biners. Some arborists found that the buttons didn't pop up completely and reported that to Petzl. Within DAYS, really, almost hours, Petzl had warnings and recall notices all over. In this case no one even had a gate open accidentally. The buttns just hung up a little. This issue was solved quickly by a professional and trusted company.
Compare that to Kong...
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Aug 20, 2010, 5:35 PM
Post #70 of 89
(5743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
treenail wrote: I don't think that it makes a difference if Jay put the rings on his bridge or not. The ring broke and was being used in a manner that has become standard practice for arborists.
Well, using electrical conduit hammered into ice "was a standard practice" for rapping off of ice climbs in the 70's and 80's... It became "standard practice" in the Rockies for a long time, but it doesn't mean it was a good idea.
You're using rings that climbers typically recommend doubling up for rap stations (ie. more or less body weight).
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 20, 2010, 5:47 PM
Post #71 of 89
(5732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
treenail wrote: Knowing Tobe Sherrill and the way his company operates there is no way that I would ever believe that 'just any ol' rings' would have been ordered. Since Tobe is well aware of the requirements of ANSI Z133 which requires 5k# strength for any life support equipment I am confident that this is the specification that would have been presented to Kong. Kong apparently doesn't do any sort of batch or proof testing of their materials. As a result a climber was injured but was very lucky.
treenail wrote: I don't think that it makes a difference if Jay put the rings on his bridge or not. The ring broke and was being used in a manner that has become standard practice for arborists.
While I do not approve of how Kong has handled this, I think you need to recognize a couple of things here-
1) You said that those rings are used in a manner that has become standard practice for arborists- thats all fine and dandy, but are those rings manufactured for that use? If not, then theres no reason to believe that they are manufactured under ANSI specs, is there? In fact, if they are considered a belay ring (which seems to be the case) there is no standard at all for them to be held to.
2) It seems to me that if you are going to be building your harnesses with different pieces of gear, and one of those pieces of gear has no specific certification marked on it (which seems to be the case here)- and that particular piece of gear is going to be your sole point of contact, you'd find a way to either proof test that gear yourself or find someone who would.
3) Its one thing to find a piece of gear and have it become standard use, but its another to assume that any piece of gear that looks similar but has no markings to suggest it is the same (regardless of what box it came out of), will do the job. I recognize that arborists make their own gear and understand the systems and the gear, and I recognize that you guys need this because companies do not manufacture the gear you need. However, you guys need to recognize that there is real risk in making your own shit and if your life is going to be hanging off it, you need to be damn sure that the gear you're using is up to the task.
Personally, I think Kong is at the most fault here, but I also think Sherrill shares some blame for selling unmarked PPE equipment, and the user also holds some blame because he didnt take it upon himself to find a way to test unmarked equipment before trusting his life to it.
Finally, you should know, if you havent realized this already, but the folks who label the gear arent always the ones who manufacture it- its also the case that there are alot of sub-par manufacturers out there and theres a reason the CE standard exists for climbers- its to make sure we dont die when using this stuff. I think in the end, the lesson here is not that you shouldnt use Kong gear, but that you shouldnt use unmarked gear.
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Aug 20, 2010, 6:08 PM
Post #72 of 89
(5721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Climber...the rings aren't made or used for just rap rings. Rap rings are a different item.
I know that Sherrill wouldn't have spec'd gear that wasn't expected to meet industry standards. If this issue ever went to court I'm sure that this would be made clear. I don't gamble either, I have enough risks in my life as an arborist.
yes...the hard lesson learned was not to have marked gear.
Another lesson learned is about corporate integrity. Kong has lost theirs in the eyes of a lot of arborists.
We all hope that these lessons can be shared with the rest of the rope access community.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 20, 2010, 6:27 PM
Post #73 of 89
(5710 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
thanks for the clarification on what rings we're talking about, BUT- you may want to read what i wrote again, as it still applies after i did forty seconds of research and found the following:
DMM makes anchor rings that are certified EN795(b):1997, minimum breaking strength 30kn.
Kong makes no such ring. They do make a ring that looks like the ones DMM makes, but it carries no certification or standard with it- which, imho, partially explains why they would ship out unmarked rings made by someone else in their boxes- those rings, for them, carry no standard of manufacture (they do say 25kn on them, but there's no CE/EN certification on them- meaning they are NOT PPE.)
personally, if it were me, and I was going to build a harness where my life depended on a sole point of contact, I'd go with the company that uses the EN standard.
I'm not saying Sherrill isnt a good company, but dude, Kong doesnt make a ring that meets industry standards- they never have. You guys have been using their stuff assuming it does because it looks like DMM's (and other companies that do rate and certify their rings) it should meet the same standards. In the game you guys are playing, thats a pretty scary assumption.
Finally, I am NOT excusing Kong- I still believe that they screwed the pooch on this one- that piece of gear should not have failed, but nor was that piece of gear being used as intended by the manufacturer, which is something that needs to be considered here.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 20, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #74 of 89
(5708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Wow, lots of verbage and it all boils down to one thing: there is nothing wrong with KONG climbing gear that is marked and used the way it's designed. A few people want to diss the entire company product line without any substantiated reason. Their entire beef is purely in regards to a product of unknown origin and unknown history in the retail chain. And the original complaint arises from a guy who was trying to save a few bucks to avoid paying for a premium product.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 20, 2010, 6:40 PM
Post #75 of 89
(5705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
treenail wrote: Moose droppings is a perfect name for you. You revel in trying to play devils advocate. Pffft!
And I could say your name represents an object that has an IQ of your reading comprehension level. Name calling isn't getting any real answers to what you guys say you want. Get past it.
In reply to: It IS true, Tobe wrote that. Go back and find out for yourself.
No, you go back and read what I wrote.
I never said Tobe didn't say that, what he said may well be true. I'm not doubting it at the moment either, I have nothing to the contrary and am taking it at face value.
In reply to: I don't think that it makes a difference if Jay put the rings on his bridge or not.
You need to rethink that properly. Putting a ring that's not intended for climbing or tree work onto a harness and then using it for those purposes is at the heart of the liability. I'm not saying, and you guys clearly won't say who did it for some reason, that whoever did it did it with malice, it was an oversight and an accident. Kong may well be be partially liable if they did mix good rings with bad ones in the same box. I hope they'll be held accountable if they are liable. You problem is you don't care about about any one elses responsibilities in this issue, you want to skip the primary and go right after Kong. If SherillTree put a bad ring on the harness, go after him, he can than turn around and go after Kong with his position. If Jay did it, then he may not be able to collect full recovery from Kong and may have to except some liability himself. That would also imply that he bought the ring from SherillTree, which may again bring them back into the matter.
I hope all those that are liable are brought to light, but you've got to let the light shine wherever it may first.
In reply to: The ring broke and was being used in a manner that has become standard practice for arborists.
Of course it broke using it in that manner, it wasn't the correct kind of ring meant for that use.
In reply to: Contrast how Kong has dealt with this issue to how Petzl dealt with the buttons on the metal sleeved Am'D biners. Some arborists found that the buttons didn't pop up completely and reported that to Petzl. Within DAYS, really, almost hours, Petzl had warnings and recall notices all over. In this case no one even had a gate open accidentally. The buttns just hung up a little. This issue was solved quickly by a professional and trusted company. Compare that to Kong...
Kong's rings don't require a recall.
Petzl isn't exactly squeaky clean in their response to some problems they've had in the past with some of their products.
Kong should be telling people to look at the rings for their markings and not to be using unmarked rings from them. Didn't they do this already?
With all the mud (contrary to Jay's wishes) that's being slung at all of Kong's gear from a few, it might be best for them to lay low and let the false accusations and pitchforks fall before responding any further. I can't see anything they could say at this point that wouldn't be taken out of context or misrepresented further as has already been done.
Good luck to you Jay. Hang in there, these things take time. I know that's hard to swallow when people are knocking at your door asking for they're money and you've been left behind. I myself am a year and a half into a simple case. unable to climb or do much of anything that requires money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
