Baker v KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd & Anor

For statutory product liability, a claimant need not identify and prove the precise design or manufacturing feature that caused a product’s safety failure. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, section 3, it is sufficient to establish that the product was defective because its safety fell below what persons generally were entitled to expect, and that the defect caused the loss.

A defect may be inferred where, after limited and normal use and despite proper servicing and maintenance, a product develops a dangerous condition that a standard non-defective product would not develop. Comparative evidence is not essential.

Mr Baker suffered severe injuries when the front brake of his KTM motorcycle seized. He brought claims against the manufacturer under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in negligence.

Following a five-day trial, the Recorder found that galvanic corrosion resulted from a design defect combined with faulty construction or inappropriate materials. The claim under the Act succeeded and damages were awarded.

The manufacturer appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of a defect and that Mr Baker had to identify a specific design or manufacturing defect. The issue was whether the corrosion and resulting brake failure supported an inference of defect under section 3.

1. Appeal dismissed. Hamblen LJ delivered the judgment, with Lloyd Jones LJ agreeing. The Recorder’s finding that the motorcycle’s braking system was defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was upheld.
2. Section 3 does not require a claimant to plead and prove the precise design or manufacturing defect, or the precise mechanism by which the defect arose. The approach in Ide v ATB Sales Ltd and Another [2007] EWHC 1667 (QB) and [2008] EWCA Civ 424 (CA) established that the court may determine whether a defect existed and caused the loss without resolving its precise mechanism.
3. The defect identified was the braking system’s susceptibility to galvanic corrosion after limited and normal use, despite proper servicing, cleaning and maintenance. The motorcycle was less than two years old, had low mileage, had been serviced, and was used and maintained normally. It was open to the Recorder to infer that standard non-defective brakes would not have developed the corrosion.
4. No comparative evidence concerning standards used by other motorcycle manufacturers was required. The absence of evidence about the motorcycle’s earlier ownership was immaterial in light of the findings that it was in excellent condition when purchased and that the relevant deterioration occurred later. The Recorder was entitled to reject the contention that inadequate cleaning caused the seizure.
5. The Recorder identified the relevant issues, made findings open to him on the evidence, and no error of law was shown. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of and occasioned by the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal on 3 May 2017.
• Leicester County Court and Family Court: following a five-day trial, the Recorder found the braking system defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and awarded damages in a judgment dated 8 May 2015.