Negligent Tort

Recall of GT Mountain Bicycles

Because of the crash threat, the Cycling Sports Group was forced to recall the GT mountain bikes. The recall took place on June 8, 2017. The 2017 GT mountain bike models involved in this case were the Aggressor Expert, Aggressor Comp, Aggressor Sport, Karakoram Comp, and Karakoram Sport. The bicycles were available in a variety of shades, including neon pink, gunmetal grey, blue, and black. Only bicycle models with a stem labeled “31.8 9-10N.m” and the GT logo on the downtube were added to the recall list. The hand break on GT mountain bicycles could snap, causing the user to lose control and pose a falling threat. The manufacturing company was therefore supposed to recall the motorcycle and repair them. About one thousand units had to be recalled. (“Cycling Sports Group Recalls GT Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard,” 2017).

Would the Manufacturer be Liable

Negligence means the omission to do a particular thing which a person who is guided by certain regulations which regulate the human behavior would do or something that a prudent man is acting in that capacity could not have done. For particular tort to become a negligence, then three elements must exist. First the legal duty of care, in this case, the plaintiff has to prove that defendant owed him/her duty of care. The prevailing circumstances must have been such that the defendant knew that their acts of negligence could injure the plaintiff. Secondly, the plaintiff must be in a position to prove that the defendant acted negligently thereby contravening the duty of care principle. The plaintiff, in this case, is supposed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his case.however in Res Ipsa loquitor situation the negligence can be proven without evidence. Lastly, the plaintiff should be able to prove the loss or the injury that was sustained resulted from defendants breach of the duty of care. In this case, the defendant might not be liable if the damage of loss suffered can not be omission or negligence by the defendant. In this case, the manufacture would be liable for the breach of the duty of care.

The manufacturer failed to test the handlebars; this fault could be noticed by any man acting in the same capacity. The mountain bicycle manufacturer acted negligently, by failing to carry out the necessary tests that could prove the that the final product for consumer use. The handlebar crack was sufficient enough to prove that the manufacturer breached the duty of care in case they sustained injuries after using the bicycle. For the customer to sufficiently prove his case, then the injuries sustained must be directly related to the mountain bicycle, this means that the injury was caused by the crack of the handlebars making the consumer fall. The recall was therefore justifiable since the company could be liable to pay for the damages sustained by consumers from the use of this mountain bicycles (”Cycling Sports Group Recalls GT Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard,” 2017).

Duty of Care

This is a legal obligation that imposed to that person that is supposed to adhere t the standards of reasonable care while performing tasks or acts that can be foreseen to harm the people. In many cases, this is the first element that must be determined to proceed with the negligence action. In this case, the customer has to establish that the company owed them a duty of care in case they are involved in an accident due to the cracking of the handlebars.

Standard of Care

This iss of care is one of the degrees of caution and prudence that is required by a person who is is under a duty of care. For instance, in this case, all the engineers and professional ought to have used their experience and skills to discover that they handlebars of the bicycles they were producing were weak and could crack thereby pausing a fall hazard to the users.

Breach of the Duty of Care

In this case, the user of the consumer of the commodity must prove that manufacturer of the bicycle owed them the duty of care in this situation. The situation that prevails should be the one that the company know or ought to have known that there act of negligence could injure the users. The entire process of manufacturing of bicycles involve professionals who ought to act reasonable and test the sold bicycle to make sure that they are fit for consumer use. In this case, they terribly failed.

Actual Causation

The actual cause remains to be the straight forward cause or the cause in fact. For example when the bicycle rider sustains injuries because of falling from a bicycle that cracked the handlebar, then the actual cause of that accident is entirely the handlebar. When a consumer sustains injuries because of the manufacturers of the products fault, they can recover the noneconomic and economic damage if they provide that the actual cause of the accidents was the manufacturer’s fault.

Proximate Causation

This is the immediate cause which is recognized by law to be the main cause of the injury. This may not be the last event before the injury occurred or it might not be the first that causes a series of events that lead to more injuries. This can an an action that leads to other events without intervention from anyone else. In this case, the users of the bicycle who sustained injuries must prove that the injuries were direct and natural consequent of the proximate cause that is handlebar crack without which the injuries could not be sustained (Ripstein, 2007).

Actual Injury

The user of the bicycle, in this case, must prove that it was the act of negligence by the manufacturer of the bicycle was the main reason that caused the injury. This means that the injury must have been sustained because of a fall that resulted from the crack of the handbrake (Gibson & Fraser, 2005).

Defenses to Negligence

Contribution to Negligence

In certain circumstances in which the plaintiff is supposed to be blamed for the injury or loss. The defendant must produce enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff also made some contribution. In this case, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff’s negligence and fault and fault also contributed to the risk; the plaintiff was at negligent and fault, and the plaintiff must have exposed himself to danger (Cracknell, 2004). This can be used as a defense in this situation suppose the customers continue using the bicycle even after it was recalled and end up sustaining injuries. The children who are at a tender age are not guilty of contribution to acts of negligence.

References

Cracknell, D. (2004). Commercial Law (1st ed.). London: Old Bailey.

Cyclin

g Sports Group Recalls GT Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard. (2017). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Retrieved 11 June 2017, from https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/Cycling-Sports-Group-Recalls-GT-Mountain-Bicycles

Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. (2005). Commercial Law (1st ed.). Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Lawbook Co.

Ripstein, A. (2007). Tort Law in a Liberal State. Journal Of Tort Law, 1(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1932-9148.1049