$1 million awarded to MB rider/ fender failure
- Thread starter oologah
- Start date
RedBaronX
Member
I'm not exactly siding with the plaintiff, but I do believe that there is a LOT more to the story than we would ever know (without reading the full trial transcripts).
What it seemed the plaintiff's proved is that the bicycle company failed to prove that they have a sufficient quality control system for either their plant or for their vendors... which says to me that they didn't have sufficient quality control to prove that the fender would have stood up to normal use. Motorizing it might have sped up the failure, but they couldn't prove that motorizing it CAUSED the failure.
They proved to the jury that the piece would have failed in any application.
What it seemed the plaintiff's proved is that the bicycle company failed to prove that they have a sufficient quality control system for either their plant or for their vendors... which says to me that they didn't have sufficient quality control to prove that the fender would have stood up to normal use. Motorizing it might have sped up the failure, but they couldn't prove that motorizing it CAUSED the failure.
They proved to the jury that the piece would have failed in any application.
I'd like to know if little Billy, Bobby or Jane ever came to any harm due to these faulty bicycles? Was this just a precursor to what's to come for this company.
I think I find myself siding for the cycle company because I loathe the total lack of responsibility taken by this plaintiff. (In my eyes) I know what I'm getting myself into every time I get on my MB. Like I've said, what happened to common sense....
I think I find myself siding for the cycle company because I loathe the total lack of responsibility taken by this plaintiff. (In my eyes) I know what I'm getting myself into every time I get on my MB. Like I've said, what happened to common sense....
Common sense is overrated. If we all had common sense we woundn't be strapping engines on bicycles 
Have you seen the faceplant/ human catapult threads? Many players there!
Myself I'm going with fenders because they look cool. Might become a member of face plant thread though.
As others have done I'm speculating on the case in true Nancy Grace fashion. I will say though that I own a GT 5.0 bicycle made by Pacific and it has a rather ingenious I-drive system that is supposed to do something. What it actually does is give you awsome traction though that wasn't the intent of the devise.
My guess is that someone at Pacific knew that the fenders were crappy.
Have you seen the faceplant/ human catapult threads? Many players there!
Myself I'm going with fenders because they look cool. Might become a member of face plant thread though.
As others have done I'm speculating on the case in true Nancy Grace fashion. I will say though that I own a GT 5.0 bicycle made by Pacific and it has a rather ingenious I-drive system that is supposed to do something. What it actually does is give you awsome traction though that wasn't the intent of the devise.
My guess is that someone at Pacific knew that the fenders were crappy.
RedBaronX
Member
my new bike came with fenders, but I am beginning to think that they might be more trouble than they are worth...
skrufryder
Member
yeah
the jury was crazy to award the plantiff. The guy just slapped a motor on there and rode down the street. These frames are not ment for this. I.m sure everyone here checks there bike's at least once a week if not every time they get on it. These motors make a bit of vibration. Who knows maybe the plantif installed the front fender, maybe he bought the bike from some guy on craigslist who porly put it together to make a few bucks who knows. bottom line Pacific shouldnt have been held resposaable for the plantifs actions. I think there was probably a warning sticker on the bike at some point stating the proper use of the bicycle. maybe in the future they will add dont put a motor on this lol.
the jury was crazy to award the plantiff. The guy just slapped a motor on there and rode down the street. These frames are not ment for this. I.m sure everyone here checks there bike's at least once a week if not every time they get on it. These motors make a bit of vibration. Who knows maybe the plantif installed the front fender, maybe he bought the bike from some guy on craigslist who porly put it together to make a few bucks who knows. bottom line Pacific shouldnt have been held resposaable for the plantifs actions. I think there was probably a warning sticker on the bike at some point stating the proper use of the bicycle. maybe in the future they will add dont put a motor on this lol.
H
HoughMade
Guest
Having defended many a lawsuit, I'll add my 2 cents.
First, I have a tendency to agree that when slapping an engine on a bicycle, whether done by an eBay seller or not, a guy has to do his research and take responsibility. A very little bit of research would have revealed this site and others where the fender issue has been common knowledge for years.
Second, and this is a little more inside baseball. One of a couple of things happened with this defense- either the defense attorneys did not get the bracket (or exemplars) on purpose (because they had a pretty good idea of what they would find), or they did, found that the results would hurt them and chose not to use the expert who did the tests. It is common to have a metallurgist do testing after metal failure/fatigue incidents, so that there is no mention of a metallurgist for the defendant, tells me something.
Third, even with a vibration-prone 2 stroke, one week of use doesn't seem like much to destroy the bracket...something seems odd here.
Fourth, this is why I do not have fenders in the traditional sense.
Fifth, it seems odd to me that the defendants would not Google this issue. If they had, they would have been clued into an additional defense that the end user should have taken preventative measures.
First, I have a tendency to agree that when slapping an engine on a bicycle, whether done by an eBay seller or not, a guy has to do his research and take responsibility. A very little bit of research would have revealed this site and others where the fender issue has been common knowledge for years.
Second, and this is a little more inside baseball. One of a couple of things happened with this defense- either the defense attorneys did not get the bracket (or exemplars) on purpose (because they had a pretty good idea of what they would find), or they did, found that the results would hurt them and chose not to use the expert who did the tests. It is common to have a metallurgist do testing after metal failure/fatigue incidents, so that there is no mention of a metallurgist for the defendant, tells me something.
Third, even with a vibration-prone 2 stroke, one week of use doesn't seem like much to destroy the bracket...something seems odd here.
Fourth, this is why I do not have fenders in the traditional sense.
Fifth, it seems odd to me that the defendants would not Google this issue. If they had, they would have been clued into an additional defense that the end user should have taken preventative measures.
Yeah, I had my fender support break too (on my Pacific Cycle bike of course!) I was able to bring it to a controlled stop though. Even if I had sustained an injury, I never would have even considered bringing a suit against the company after I modified it so radically. That is just wrong.
WhizBangAndy
Member
After my one scrape with a negligent individual (No..I dont think that going down a LONG hill at over 40MPH is warrantied for an engine failure) I no longer will try to make $50 on an unit to have someone irresponsible rake me over a legal bonfire. Not including peeps on this board but most individuals AREN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!! And lawyers will try their best to let you know that.
