Love v Halfords Ltd

In a product-liability claim, the claimant bears the burden of proving that a defect caused the damage. The court may conclude that causation is unproven where competing explanations remain uncertain; it need not select the least improbable explanation. Once causation is established, the defendant bears the evidential burden of showing that the defect did not exist when the product was supplied, where that defence is relied upon. The court may infer causation from the evidence without identifying the precise mechanism of failure. A component damaged after supply, and later repaired inadequately, is not a defect existing at the relevant time under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

The claimant suffered severe injuries when a mountain bicycle supplied by the defendant fractured while he was riding it. He claimed damages under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The principal issue was whether the steerer tube fractured before the accident and caused the claimant to lose control, or whether it fractured during an accident. A further issue was whether any defect existed when the bicycle was supplied.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the steerer-tube fracture caused the accident. The court was entitled to conclude that the fracture resulted from the accident rather than caused it.
2. The approach in Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (the Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 948 applied. A claimant is not entitled to succeed merely because one explanation is less improbable than competing explanations. Causation may remain unproved after a prolonged inquiry involving extensive expert evidence.
3. The guidance in Ide v ATB Sales Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 424 confirmed that a judge need not choose between unsatisfactory theories. However, once competing causes are properly excluded, the evidence may support an inference that a defect caused the accident without proof of the precise reason why the component failed.
4. On the statutory defence, the claimant’s final submission was accepted. The defendant bore the evidential burden of showing that the defect did not exist when the product was supplied. The apparently contrary first-instance authorities were distinguishable because they involved failures to prove a causative defect. The reasoning in McGlinchey v General Motors UK Ltd [2012] CSIH 91 was similarly treated as arising in that context.
5. The expert evidence established that the steerer tube had previously been bent and then inadequately straightened. That post-supply damage reduced its ductility. The final fracture was caused by a later high-force accident and was not itself the cause of the accident. The tube, its design, assembly and material were not defective when supplied. The claim was therefore dismissed.