Thanks bauer!

[Officer Dangle 0]

Bauer has unbelievable customer service. In '06 or '07 I got pretty decent concussion wearing a Bauer helmet (one of their middle of the road models, can't remember which one) that was only about 4 or 5 weeks old. My dad gave them a call, not to complain or anything, just to comment. They ended up picking up the tab on the medical bills and a Reebok 8K helmet.

They actually sent you a Reebok helmet? I can't really see that. That's kind of like admitting that they don't make a helmet as safe as a Reebok.

As far as what they did for the OP...It's things like that makes bauer the industry leader

They told me to pick out any helmet and mail them a copy of the receipt. I picked out a Reebok 8K and they sent me a check a week or two later.

[chippa13 1844]

^ No doubt.

Even though as title sponsor they have NO legal liability (and certainly Bauer had ALL sorts of indemnity/liability clauses in the contracts) it is still expensive to defend nuisance lawsuits.

I personally think this was beyond normal lawsuit dodging though. They could have just done the entry fee + next years, and the hospital costs and still come off as the good guys in this.

The sticks/bags/accessories puts them over the edge for me, and IMHO they're a company I'm now more likely to do business with.

Bauer could still technically be bought into a law suit, it would simply be a very slippery slope to climb for anyone wanting to sue them for this reason, essentially the rink's neglegence. Rare and difficult, but not unheard of.

Bauer aren't so much dodging law suits as they are creating advocates of their re-invented brand. This is a very smart step by them as these kids will never forget the negative being turned into a positive for the rest of their lives.

On'ya Bauer!

The first rule of lawsuits, attach everyone you can. A lawyer would argue that if Bauer is sponsoring the event then they are responsible for it being held in a safe environment.

[Aussie Joe 0]

Correct Chippa, I work with Public Liability Insurance and, I can tell you that any Lawyer worth his mustard would argue that if Bauer is choosing to support the tourney (and by proxy the rink) they would have some sway in terms of the rink's level of safety.

As we can now see this could have effects on Bauer's name. Hence why an interest in the rink running their business properly is important.

As I said before but, it would be tough to prove that Bauer was neglegent in the lawsuit, but not impossible/unheard of.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

You'd have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bauer knew of the CO2 issue before hand, took no reasonable action to correct the problem, and promoted the tourney anyway. They'd be included in a lawsuit just because they have deeper pockets than most local rinks and might be willing to settle out of court to avoid bad PR. There's almost no chance you could actually win in court. You probably wouldn't actually have enough to even sustain the charges to a trial.

Are we really so jaded we have to believe no one does anything just because it's a good thing to do? Must everything be a lawsuit dodge, or some other selfish motivate? Soceity in general rails about corporate responsiblity, but when you actually see it in action it's dismissed as being part of some sinister agenda. Little wonder why corporations have little motivate to do anything beyond what they absolutely must do.

[Moose 1]

I think the majority of the posts here are giving kudos to Bauer for their genuine care of their clients- not calling it a smoke screen for lawsuit dodging. Unless your "we" was meant for outside the recent posts... in that case, disregard :)

[Chadd 916]

You'd have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bauer knew of the CO2 issue before hand, took no reasonable action to correct the problem, and promoted the tourney anyway.

That's a much higher standard than is generally applied. The standard would more likely be along the lines of the rink being operated in a safe manner. That would require Bauer to have done some research into the subject and be able to prove that they did so.

Are we really so jaded we have to believe no one does anything just because it's a good thing to do?

It's not an unreasonable belief to have in this situation. In any case, I think it was excellent of Bauer to do all of that without being prodded in any way. Regardless of their motivation, their actions were exemplary in this case.

[Aussie Joe 0]

Agree with RecLeague and Moose.

Obviously its not a case of Bauer dodging a lawsuit. They are seeing an opportunity to have a positive effect on young hockey players/the community and further their brand.

In the end it is all good for the kids and for Bauer.

[Chadd 916]

In the end it is all good for the kids and for Bauer.

And it doesn't matter a bit what the rest of us think. As long as both parties are happy, there's no reason for anyone else to get involved.

[Aussie Joe 0]

I think it does mattter, this is a feel good story where (as you have said already Chadd) Bauer stood up without provocation or expectation and made a gesture of good will that reflects upon their brand in a positive manner. That of all things is worth it.

We hear so much about all the breaks, the faulty new lines of gear etc. To hear a story like this, makes me very glad that I just bought some ONE75 skates.

That and they fit my feet like a glove :D

[JR Boucicaut 3803]

Oh, so those Grafs didn't work? Hmm...

[RecLeagueHero 0]

That's a much higher standard than is generally applied. The standard would more likely be along the lines of the rink being operated in a safe manner. That would require Bauer to have done some research into the subject and be able to prove that they did so.

You're simply wrong, and clearly do not understand how the burden of proof works in American jurisprudence. As a PLANTIFF the burden of proof is on YOU, that's just how our legal system works. If you want to sue someone, YOU have to prove your case. You don't get to show up in court and make charges that the defendant must then prove are untrue. So again, if anyone wants to hold Bauer liable, they must prove in court that Bauer actually has liablity here, and then acted in a way that would expose them to legal consequence.

This would amount to trying to sue the sponser of a little league field because you slipped and fell on the grand stands. Or trying to sue Coke becaue you got hurt at one of the billion events they sponser. Bauer has no ownership interest in this rink and no control over the operation. That fact alone produces very little legal liability. So again, you would be required to prove that Bauer knew of this, took no legally reasonable action, and chose to use the rink any way.

It's not an unreasonable belief to have in this situation.

It's about as reasonbable as your understanding of the legal process......

[chk hrd 164]

it's because so many people have used the legal system for the completely wrong reasons. Now it is just cheaper for the insurance companies to pay a fee out than it is to fight it. The deeper the pockets the bigger the insurance and they make sure to name everyone and anyone they can because it is just more insurance to pay. The crooked lawyers have done a good job of turning the legal system into a joke.

[Kevin 5]

Insurance companies do not pay claims that can be disposed of via a summary judgment motion.

[MLSman 22]

Class act by Bauer....as usual for the company. I can remember many positive stories before the Nike acquisition. Kudos to them for being proactive...vs reactive.

[MLSman 22]

It's about as reasonbable as your understanding of the legal process......

Ouch...but RecLeague is 100% correct. If you have ever had the "pleasure" of reading CPL, the burden of proof is what swings the pendulum of justice.

There is 0 liability from a legal perspective. I know we have some radicals in this lovely place called ModSquad, but Bauer lawyers are chucking at our banter because they assume no liability when it comes to walking into any Ice Facility. It is about as legally viable as trying to sue a hockey skate manufacturer because you stood in front of a slapshot and your ankle is completely shattered forever.....unless the player has the burden of proof that the skate was so poorly made and Bauer was negligent in the manufacturing process. Good luck finding a pro bono lawyer on that case...

In this case...the only party with minor liability is the rink....which again clearly states ZERO liability when parties enter THEIR facility...so again...no burden of proof here either.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

regardless, bauer can still be named in the suit... reasonably or unreasonably. It would still cost them money for a defense, so the covering themselves angle does have some merit, but not a whole lot.

As for whether the gesture on bauers part was them covering or them being nice, i'm going to believe it's the latter.

[Chadd 916]

It's about as reasonbable as your understanding of the legal process......

Ouch...but RecLeague is 100% correct. If you have ever had the "pleasure" of reading CPL, the burden of proof is what swings the pendulum of justice.

There is 0 liability from a legal perspective. I know we have some radicals in this lovely place called ModSquad, but Bauer lawyers are chucking at our banter because they assume no liability when it comes to walking into any Ice Facility. It is about as legally viable as trying to sue a hockey skate manufacturer because you stood in front of a slapshot and your ankle is completely shattered forever.....unless the player has the burden of proof that the skate was so poorly made and Bauer was negligent in the manufacturing process. Good luck finding a pro bono lawyer on that case...

In this case...the only party with minor liability is the rink....which again clearly states ZERO liability when parties enter THEIR facility...so again...no burden of proof here either.

There are more than a few existing cases that indicate otherwise.

it's because so many people have used the legal system for the completely wrong reasons. Now it is just cheaper for the insurance companies to pay a fee out than it is to fight it. The deeper the pockets the bigger the insurance and they make sure to name everyone and anyone they can because it is just more insurance to pay. The crooked lawyers have done a good job of turning the legal system into a joke.

The American legal system has become a lottery for way too many people.

[MLSman 22]

There are more than a few existing cases that indicate otherwise.

Indulge me...what existing cases have superseded burden of proof?

And if anyone says OJ...man you have no idea how negligent the prosecution was in that case.

[Aussie Joe 0]

Oh, so those Grafs didn't work? Hmm...

Nope, tried something new and they felt like goalie skates, AKA: Clogs.

They are up for sale JR. ;)

[Chadd 916]

There are more than a few existing cases that indicate otherwise.

Indulge me...what existing cases have superseded burden of proof?

And if anyone says OJ...man you have no idea how negligent the prosecution was in that case.

We all know he was guilty and we all know they did a piss poor job of proving it.

It would largely depend on their level of association with the tournament. There would be a much higher likely hood of being held liable if they were an organizer or promoter, as opposed to being the XXX tourney sponsored by Bauer.

Again, I agree with everyone that it's great that Bauer did the right thing without being pushed or anyone even asking. Most of the people I have met with the company are people that I like and have been nothing short of fantastic in their participation with MSH. To be honest, I don't care why they did it, their actions were exemplary.

[Jeff 0]

My beerleague teammate's son played in the tournament. (CA Heat U16 AA)

He said that the only parents complaining, threatening lawsuits and generally being nasty about the whole situation were from CA.

[twistoffate19 0]

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but after searching, this is the closest thread I could find since it deals with Bauer customer service. I recently purchased an X60 and it broke on day 21. It was an 87 flex. I'm wondering if anyone has ever had any experience calling Bauer and asking if the replacement stick could be of different flex? I'll admit I bought the 87 flex as an experiment, but I now know that I need the 102 flex. I've been trying to call Bauer since I got home from work, but the line has been busy. I left a message, so hopefully they get back to me. Just wondering in the mean time if anyone has ever experienced this and if Bauer has let you switch flexes for a replacement stick?

[SuperMan3 1]

Sorry to be a dink, but "are" and "our" have completely different meanings.

[jrhky36 1]

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but after searching, this is the closest thread I could find since it deals with Bauer customer service. I recently purchased an X60 and it broke on day 21. It was an 87 flex. I'm wondering if anyone has ever had any experience calling Bauer and asking if the replacement stick could be of different flex? I'll admit I bought the 87 flex as an experiment, but I now know that I need the 102 flex. I've been trying to call Bauer since I got home from work, but the line has been busy. I left a message, so hopefully they get back to me. Just wondering in the mean time if anyone has ever experienced this and if Bauer has let you switch flexes for a replacement stick?

best way to get in touch with them is through their website