Harry, a keen
commuting cyclist bought a “Flying Machine Base Urban Model RD2” from the
defendant’s shop. The bike has a Gates
carbon belt drive with an 8 speed internal hub.
The belt engages with an alloy rear sprocket and the inner teeth of the
sprocket, where it sits on the hub, suffered shearing/wear causing it to slip
as he set off from a standing start.
This happened on two occasions before the saw the reason his right leg
gave way as he attempted to set off from traffic lights.
Harry had reported
the problem to the bike shop and in fairness to them, they privately admitted
that other customers had reported similar problems and the manufacturers had
reverted to the use of steel sprockets. Harry recovered the damaged sprocket from the shop, which was sensible, as any expert would need to examine it to provide an opinion on the cause of the defect / failure.
In law, the sprocket
was defective under the EU Product Liability Directive and the Consumer
Protection Act 1987. Any expert evidence
needed to prove this defect was likely to be expensive. Manufacturers don’t like admitting defects in
materials or construction and will often go to great lengths to allege customer
misuse.
In this case the
shop’s insurers admitted liability early on and expert liability evidence was not needed.
Harry had suffered tendon/ligament damage to his knee and he had
organised sports rehabilitation physiotherapy himself for which he had
paid. We obtained a report from an
orthopaedic doctor with an interest in knee problems. His report identified the
likely length of time the knee had been affected by the injury. (Harry had
since resumed cycling).
The shop’s insurers
made an offer of £4,500 to compensate him for the injury, the medical expenses
he had incurred and his other out of pocket losses (the shop had paid for
repairs to the cycle).
The insurers also paid the recoverable costs Harry incurred. The lesson of this case is that where a product is alleged to be defective, retain the product until it can be examined by an expert appointed by your solicitor. If the item is released to the defendant, it may be sent off for destructive testing thus depriving you of the evidence you need to prove the case.
