Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

legal updates

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Sometimes life coughs up coincidences no writer of fiction would dare copy.
Stephen King

Our clients carried out a service and MOT on a motorbike owned by the Claimant.

The only mechanical work carried out was to a faulty front wheel, together with a change of oil and oil filter.

The Claimant collected the bike and drove home, and after about 30 miles the engine seized.

The Claimant, of course, assumed that it was the work carried out by our clients that caused the failure of the engine. Following the breakdown of discussions, they issued legal proceedings.

Offers to settle were made to avoid the hassle for the client of attending court if possible, including offers of up to 50 percent of the claim. However, the Claimant was adamant that our clients were completely responsible and rejected all offers.

The court authorised the instruction of a motor engineer to inspect the vehicle. A respected TT racer garage produced a report stating that the cause of the fault was oil starvation, but they could not say when this occurred or what caused it.

Therefore, when it came to the hearing, the Claimant was relying on the coincidence that just 30 miles after the work was carried out, his bike suffered an engine seizure requiring a new engine.

The clients were able to demonstrate to the court that they had carried out the service in the correct manner.

They pointed to the fact that the vehicle was taken to an independent MOT testing station. As it failed on the first test due to a front wheel fault, it was taken back for a re-test, where a different tester examined it. Neither of these testers, nor our clients, found any issue with the oil or the running of the bike.

Automotive ComplianceWE TALK YOUR LANGUAGE, WE KNOW YOUR BUSINESS

Need help with keeping on track with FCA Regulation and Compliance? Partner with Automotive Compliance

There was no evidence to support the claim that our clients had performed the service and repairs without reasonable care and skill. As a result, the Claimant’s claim was dismissed by the court.

Sometimes something that happens is exactly that, a coincidence, and there is no link between two events.

If you get such an allegation, come to Lawgistics so we can assess the incident for what it actually is and not what the customer wants to assume. Remember, our members can also access our legal helpline and casework service to get support when faced with claims like these.

Darren FletcherLitigation ExecutiveRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Experts vs. “Garage Reports”: The evidence edge that could win your case

Garage reports can help, but only CPR Part 35 expert evidence tends to swing a dispute. Before costs spiral, here’s how and when to use experts to protect your position with consumers, businesses, and finance companies.

“Running Well”: Two words that cost a consumer £3,300

The judge found our member’s repairs were sound and ruled the email undercut the later allegations, dismissing the claim and awarding expenses.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

They Broke It, You Don’t Pay: Intervening Acts that defend dealer claims

When damage stems from what a customer did after purchase, you may not be on the hook.

To strike or not to strike

Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim or defence, even where there are procedural breaches. Here’s when CPR 3.4(2) genuinely applies, why summary judgment under Part 24 may be a better route, and what judges look for before taking the drastic step.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

Come On, Baby, Light My Fire

If a car goes up in smoke, does the buyer’s insurance mean the trader escapes liability? Here’s how insurer involvement really works…

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.