Divya & Ors v Toyo Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd (t/a Toyo Tires of Japan) & Anor

In a common-law negligence claim concerning a defective product, the claimant must prove both the defect and negligence by the manufacturer. A manufacturing defect may support an inference of negligence from the defect and the known circumstances, even where the precise employee, act or omission cannot be identified. That approach does not impose strict liability. The court must assess competing explanations on the balance of probabilities, including misuse, external damage, age and inadequate maintenance. Where the manufacturing process should have prevented the defect, and the product was released with a dangerous latent defect, the manufacturer may be liable if reasonable care was not exercised in manufacture or inspection.

Five passengers were injured when a Mitsubishi Pajero overturned on the M4 after the rear offside tyre, manufactured by Toyo in Japan, lost approximately half its tread and deflated. The claimants alleged that the tyre contained a manufacturing defect. Toyo alleged that the vehicle had struck an object or entered the central reservation, and the second defendant was negligent. The claims were brought in common-law negligence; no contractual claim was advanced and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was unavailable. The trial concerned primary liability, including the cause of the tyre failure and whether any manufacturing defect resulted from Toyo’s negligence.

1. Causation. The tyre failed because of incomplete bonding between the steel cords and rubber. The defect probably resulted from inadequate rubber penetration or failure to cure the tyre for the correct time, temperature or pressure. External impact, under-inflation, overloading, age degradation and other suggested causes were rejected on the evidence.
2. Burden of proof. The claim was in common-law negligence, so the claimants had to prove both a manufacturing defect and negligence by Toyo. There was no burden on Toyo. The court applied the balance of probabilities.
3. Inference of negligence. The reasoning in Carroll v Fearon, Bent and Dunlop Ltd [1998] PIQR 416 was valuable assistance. The claimant need not identify the individual responsible or specify the precise negligent act where an identified manufacturing fault would not have existed if the manufacturing process had operated as intended. The court nevertheless had to avoid imposing strict liability.
4. Application. The manufacturing process was designed to prevent the defect. The tyre nevertheless entered circulation with a dangerous latent defect. Toyo’s evidence established a high standard of manufacture and inspection, but the evidence supported the conclusion that the process or its human supervision had failed to achieve that standard and had failed to detect the failure.
5. The second defendant was not negligent. The claimants’ seat-belt allegations were left for any later determination on quantum. Judgment was therefore entered against Toyo on primary liability, with the second defendant acquitted of negligence.