Mountain bike crash court case - importer loses appeal
The British legal system has given a final ruling in a bike component failiure case (Bike Radar)
In a ruling that could set a worrying precedent for British
cycle importers, an
Alan Ide, formerly a self-employed accountant and now aged
49, crashed while riding his 1999 model Marin Rift Zone down a hill in the
The action was brought on the grounds that the company sold a bike with handlebars that were defective as a result of faulty manufacturing and that suffered a catastrophic failure while Mr Ide was riding under normal conditions.
Mr Ide lost his sense of taste and smell and suffers from impaired memory and concentration as a result of the accident.
ATB Sales, however, had claimed the damage to the bars could have occurred as a result of the impact as the rider lost control and crashed.
At the original trial in July 2007 a judge found in favour of Mr Ide, after which ATB Sales appealed on the basis that the judge was not entitled to conclude that Mr Ide had proven his case, simply on the basis that the alternative scenario of the bar breaking upon impact had been rejected.
In his ruling Lord Justice Thomas disagreed and said that the orginal judge, Mr Justice Gray, “did not use any impermissible train of reasoning” in reaching his conclusion.
The ruling clears the way for Mr Ide to claim substantial damages.
Comments
There are 11 comments on this post
Showing 1 - 5 of 11 comments
-
vc
Posted Sat 3 May, 10:47 pm BST
Having read the full judgement it appears that it was the right decision. J...2TS fails to understand the consumer protection laws which we all benefit from. The evidence showed that the failure was due to material defect at manufacture. It is the importer who is liable under UK law - they take the money in the UK when times are good. If not how can the single person tack things up with the OEM who is off shore in the Far East. If your TV busts after 2 years do you take it up with Sony or the shop/importer?
-
HarryDd
Posted Fri 2 May, 4:38 pm BST
The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 allows a person to sue for compensation for death, personal injury or damage to personal property (subject to a minimum value) caused by a defective product. The court has to consider how the product was marketed, any warnings or instructions supplied with it, what might reasonable be used for and when the product was supplied. The court will also look at any contributary negligence. Previous to this there was case law which was at best unclear but mast suppliers would have taken out insurance against as a matter of course.
The consumer must be able to show on the balance of probabilities that the defect in the product caused the damage. The consumer does not have to prove negligence - just that the product was faulty.
The supplier has six defences of which the most relevant here could be that the defect was not in the product at the time it was supplied, i.e. if the defect was introduced after supply by wear and tear or by unrepaired crash damage. There are time limits on making any claim.
Just imagine if it was you who was damaged and couldn't work or even ride again because of a defective product how many would turn round and say "well, thats life!"? Not many I bet. The liability has to fall on someone and why not the supplier of the defective goods. The law forces manufacturers into minimising defects - nothing that the consumer has any control over. Manufacturers and suppliers will have insurance cover to cover such liabilities - how many of us could affort insurance to covera lifetime of income lost if we couldn't work ever again? Again not many I bet.
All in all clearly good news for us as cycling consumers. The fact that there have been few cases in the last 21 years shows that suppliers and manufacturers havegenerally taken a proactive approach to defect reduction. The court case shows that the law is working. The court case doesn't change anything - the world hasn't tilted on it's axis. No doubt a number of manufacturers will review their QC procedures. As for the rest of us - let us be glad the law is for us.
-
ejls2
Posted Fri 2 May, 10:50 am BST
I'm afraid that I'm in the "Good day for cyclists" camp. Manufacturers and importers will have to take another look at safety and will have to emphasise to customers that good practice with regard to safety and maintenance are vitally important.
One of the importer's experts is clearly talking bollocks. The methodology of the other was a bit suspect and he hadn't carried out an SEM. You have to ask yourself why not!
Having reviewed the SEM, which is by far and away the best evidence the court saw, both of the claimant's experts agree it was a ductile fracture not a pre-existing crack.
The ped incident was, apparently, minor. He didn't even come off.
It was the South Downs not Coed y Brenin! I'd be happy taking a road bike down there! :)
Remember that this hearing only established the overall liability. On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely that the initial defects of the bar caused the accident than fatige/operator error.
His damages may well be decreased for failing to check and/or replace the bar etc. However, without access to an SEM, how exactly do you look for microscopic fractures in aluminium? :(
Regardless of who was right and who was wrong, the lesson is pretty clear:
Replace your bars regularly!
I replace mine every year off-road and every two years on the road, or immediately after any crash. That's the price you pay for having lightweight components!
-
carbonfiend
Posted Fri 2 May, 10:23 am BST
I've just read virtually all the report and from what I can see the evidence says the bars were defective! Bang to rights as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this will be a wake up call to manufacturers and distributors, don't sell shody material.
As for 'terrible news for cyclists' what about the bloke who suffered brain damage because something that has now twice in court of law been proven not to be his fault. I've been through a court case that involved a bike accident and serious damage to myself and took a number of years to settle, not only is the physical side of the accident a heavy stress to bear but the court battle can be even worse so I say all power to him to taking this fight on and winning. Hope he gets the settlement he deserves.
-
jacks2ts
Posted Thu 1 May, 3:20 pm BST
My self i'm thinking the old fella just anouther git thats seeing a way to screw cash for notning and a trueley believable reaction by the first judge were they golfing buddies or something " funny handshake rooled up left trouser leg" stuff break's and if you riden 1000's of miles on a 3 year old bike and never checked it or had it serviced in that time then more fool you . I hope ATB go all the way with this one "They never made the part" and as my final point and anyone who rides of road will probly agree " it's allway's our fault when we crash no one's else's even if a part fails youtube can confrem that look at [ snnapped forks ] you'll see what i mean
Bookmark with: