Ide v ATB Sales Ltd

Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, an importer is strictly liable where damage is caused wholly or partly by a product defect. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the product’s safety was below that which persons generally were entitled to expect and that the defect caused the damage.

The claimant need not establish the precise mechanism by which the defect arose or the accident occurred. The court may infer defect and causation from the totality of the evidence, including a component’s sudden failure, comparative testing, its intended use, and the rejection of an alternative accident mechanism.

The claimant suffered severe head injuries when he fell from a mountain bike on a bridleway. The bike’s left handlebar fractured. The claimant alleged that the handlebar was defective and that its sudden fracture caused him to lose control. The defendant, an importer and distributor, contended that the claimant first lost control and that the handlebar fractured during the fall.

The claim was pursued under the strict-liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Liability only was tried. The central issues were whether the handlebar was defective, whether the defect caused the fracture and accident, and whether the claimant had to prove the precise mechanism by which the fracture occurred.

1. The claim succeeded on liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The claimant was not required to identify precisely how the weakness or fracture developed. The issue was whether, on the balance of probabilities, the handlebar was defective within section 3(1) and whether that defect caused the accident.

2. The court rejected the defendant’s reconstruction that the claimant lost control by entering a rut and that his body fractured the handlebar during the fall. The terrain was relatively straightforward, the claimant was an experienced rider familiar with the route and bike, the handlebar fracture was sudden and catastrophic, and the claimant and bike remained together after the accident. The alleged impact mechanism was therefore highly unlikely.

3. The comparative testing was significant. The claimant’s right-hand handlebar fractured at about 110 kg without prior bending, whereas comparable handlebars bent without fracturing at substantially higher loads. The evidence showed that the claimant’s handlebars behaved differently and were weaker and more brittle than they should have been for a bike designed for off-road riding.

4. The defect might have been an inherent manufacturing defect or might have resulted from deterioration during use. It was unnecessary to decide between those possibilities. The totality of the evidence established that the handlebar was defective, that the defect caused the left-hand handlebar to fracture during riding, and that the fracture caused immediate loss of control and the claimant’s fall.

5. Liability was accordingly determined in favour of the claimant.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.