Back wheel fell off!
Comments
-
Well if this is the case I am going to stop doing repairs from home lol. Bike goes away, only myself has checked it, QR comes undone 6 weeks later when some scally undid it while it was locked in the pub car park, I get sued.
Is not the word of the mechanic enough? Plus anyone can sign a bit of paper and not do the work! Surely the consumer has to exercise due care and attention?0 -
I read..Stokie wrote:The bike was taken home in the back of a transit van, standing up and strapped and it got rode out to the trail too. we had been out about an hour hour and a half before she fell off, so light was the fall that it didnt leave any marks on her and the bike didnt even get scuffed.
It was one of those things that ive learned from, i should have checked it even the very basic of checks would have spotted it i guess. My fault, and ive the earache to prove it off her.
To mean that it was a matter of hours from build to wheel falling off? if it was several weeks, then I would struggle to see the retailer having any responsibility beyond injuries caused by defective parts. Since as you say there are many things which could have caused it to be loose.
If its literally a matter of hours, I can't see any reason other than it was not done up correctly? They don't just come loose assuming they are fit for purpose.
Not wishing to scare you off, here are your general obligations..
Anyone (B) providing a services for consideration (i.e. normally money) to a person (A) has the following obligations under the general laws of negligence. For any claim to succeed, A must show:
1. a duty of care owed to him by B
2. that B breached that duty of care (i.e. did something or failed to do something)
3. damage caused by whatever B did in breach of the duty of care
4. that the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of B's breach of duty.
If A cannot prove each of duty, breach, causation and damage, he loses his claim.
I have never said that the retailer is hung out to dry, but a failure to maintain records and properly check work, would lead to a fairly easy case of the above. A one man band simply needs to run the checks with the consumer to easily meet his duty of care.
simple?0 -
It takes seconds to knock a QR open in a van ;-)
This is why I added six weeks as an example - time obviously has an impact on how these things are viewed, even though the bike may not have been ridden at all in that six weeks.
I guess there is nothing to stop any rider loosening a qr themselves and claiming it was the shops fault!0 -
Which is why you need evidence that was done properly.0
-
I feel like saying this thread is retarded, but I will probably come up with some similar shit some time in the future.
0 -
supersonic wrote:It takes seconds to knock a QR open in a van ;-)
This is why I added six weeks as an example - time obviously has an impact on how these things are viewed, even though the bike may not have been ridden at all in that six weeks.
I guess there is nothing to stop any rider loosening a qr themselves and claiming it was the shops fault!
Such as filming all the work? A signed form is not evidence.0 -
I wouldn't trust your film could be CGI. All jobs should be checked by an engineer and signed off by a judge.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
I think you are thinking this is harder than it actually is. I don't know if you have ever been in a civil court, but its not how you think.
Depending on the cause of the failure and if it was an alleged breach of contract, negligence or breach of duty of care - your signed job sheet would be very effective as evidence that the work was done.
Its then down to the claimant to prove that the sheet is false usually to the burden of strict proof.
Certain retailers I have witnessed simply go tick tick tick and do not carry out the checks therefore it could be fairly easy to rebut the evidence. However in a serious case, either party could provide evidence to rebut or defend a job sheet.
Without one however, you have a burden of proof that the checks were carried out and not simply forgotten.0 -
But the rider has a duty of care to check the part! It is an adjustable fastener.0
-
No he doesn't - he has no duty of care, the duty of care exists because there is a contract (offer consideration acceptance).
If you repaired someones bike foc - you don't have any duty of care, just as you don't have any if you help someone put a bike on the roof and accidentally damage it etc.
you only have a duty of care if you are offering a service for consideration. (consideration is normally money). Everything else is just and "accident", unless their was negligence.0 -
So the rider can pick his bike up, do no maintenance at all or checks ever, and if the bike goes wrong at some time in the future blame the shop?0
-
Nope - he must do what a reasonable person would do.0
-
supersonic wrote:But the rider has a duty of care to check the part! It is an adjustable fastener.
+1 totally agree....we're going far to much into a blame culture these days ! making life very very very boring :evil:0 -
Which is check the quick release before a ride. That is very reasonable.0
-
Four pages over a QR. Hope no one forgets to tie their shoelaces and trips.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
correct, but if the retailer also failed to do it, then we are back to the start. and any claim by the consumer for this failure by the retailer cannot be disregarded due to his contributory negligence. That is the essence of the act I posted.
like it or not, if you charge a fee to do something and fail to do it, you have obligations to meet damages that may result, subject to any limitation of liability that you may agree. If your failure is made worse by their failure your failure is still the primary failure and their failure cannot supersede yours. That is written in statute - end of.
PS I was out tonight and guess what happened - QR came loose 0 -
if you are not interested why post?0
-
Lol. This is sort of related:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/f ... ult-19206/
Though nobody ever knew the outcome...0 -
I'm simply trying point out that if you maintain or repair bikes for a hobby business or full time business, you need to keep reasonable records of the work you do to avoid someone making an allegation that your work was defective and claim damages against you. I would have thought its common sense?
If you are in business you need to protect yourself from genuine, fraudulent or vexatious claims0 -
No, you're being a knob.diy wrote:I'm simply trying...
But please, carry on, it's quite amusing.
Oh, and you can't prove I just insulted you because you didn't actually SEE me write that. It could have been any of my army of monkeys, or even a web-bot, spweing forth random replies.0 -
This thread shows why the gene pool is going to sh1t. A few more generations and the average person will be a slobbering moron.
Idiocracy come true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IdiocracyI don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Most people do keep reasonable records: but maybe not as detailed as you think. The service sheet for a gear service may say: front and rear mechs adjusted, mech hanger straightened, cassette and chain replaced. This could be signed and counter signed: but it hasn't said the wheel was removed (though it must have been) or how the QR or wheel bolts were torqued. How far do you go?0
-
Ok, play fair! I am actually genuinely interested in some of this for when I open Sonic's Cycles!0
-
I can't find it on lawindex so maybe they settled.supersonic wrote:Lol. This is sort of related:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/f ... ult-19206/
Though nobody ever knew the outcome...0 -
diy wrote:
I can't find it on lawindex so maybe they settled.supersonic wrote:Lol. This is sort of related:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/f ... ult-19206/
Though nobody ever knew the outcome...
Just watch the BBC programme " il see you in court"
Short story is, everytime somone tries to sue all that happends is that the rich win or both partys agree to settle out of court.
avg cost of 1 day in the High Court £10,000, and given they argue over words and how they are used not useally getting to the core issue it takes a long time to get a result.
p.s watch the High court in january 2012 news of the world gets sued by MP and he isnt going to settle, be interesting to see who knew about hacking claims 8)London2Brighton Challange 100k!
http://www.justgiving.com/broxbourne-runners0 -
I think the problem always seems to be irrational emotion that stops people focusing on what they want rather than punishing the other party. IPR, PI and land law all seem to end up with ridiculous costs vs. the award.
Although I'm aware of one poor chap who had a developer build a house on his garden due to a land registry cock up and it seems unlikely that anything will happen, due the to costs involved. The person is fighting to get the developer to reinstate the land. It will never happen. The costs are already greater than the value of the plot and house now on the plot. He has wiped his life's saving out, due to his emotional attachment.
SS - if you do think you have exposure, give me a shout and I will send you some T&Cs that will protect you against most of the risks a business faces.0 -
supersonic wrote:Lol. This is sort of related:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/f ... ult-19206/
Though nobody ever knew the outcome...
A few other riders from mtb-wales and myself helped in small part in his defence. We were filmed on the section of the GAP descent that Russ was injured on.
Fox settled out of court with waivers that the sum and findings were to be undisclosed.
After meeting Russ to do the filming, I put allan key skewers on all the family bikes.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0
