Baker v KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 February 2010, the Respondent was riding a KTM Supermoto 990 motorcycle along Manor Road, Derby, travelling within the speed limit when the front brake suddenly seized without warning. This caused the Respondent to be thrown from the motorcycle, resulting in severe personal injuries. The Respondent sued the Appellant, KTM Sportmotorcycle AG (now KTM Motorrad AG), the manufacturer of the motorcycle, alleging that the accident and injuries were caused by a defect in the motorcycle under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) and/or negligence.

Following a five-day trial in early 2015, the Recorder upheld the Respondent’s claim under the CPA and awarded damages. The Recorder found that the cause of the brake seizure was galvanic corrosion resulting from a design defect combined with faulty construction or the use of inappropriate or faulty materials. The Appellant appealed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the galvanic corrosion was caused by a defect within the meaning of the CPA.

The Respondent was a 49-year-old locum maxillofacial surgeon and experienced motorcyclist. The motorcycle was manufactured in March 2008, first registered in the UK in April 2008, and purchased by the Respondent in November 2009 from a dealer with low mileage and full servicing. The Respondent maintained and cleaned the motorcycle regularly, including washing it down to avoid road salt accumulation.

At trial, expert evidence was presented from both parties regarding the condition of the motorcycle and the cause of the brake seizure. The Respondent’s experts identified galvanic corrosion as the cause, while the Appellant’s experts attributed the issue to lack of proper maintenance. The Recorder found the corrosion to be a defect causing the accident.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was a defect in the construction and design of the motorcycle’s front braking system within the meaning of the CPA;
2. Whether the galvanic corrosion was the result of a design defect and/or faulty construction or use of faulty or inappropriate materials;
3. Whether the galvanic corrosion was the immediate cause of the accident (not pursued on appeal).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was no or insufficient evidence that galvanic corrosion was caused by a defect within the meaning of the CPA.
• Galvanic corrosion itself is not a defect unless linked to a specific design or manufacturing fault, which was not pleaded or proven.
• The Respondent needed to prove a particular feature of design or manufacture causing the corrosion, which was not done.
• The absence of evidence regarding the motorcycle’s condition during prior ownership undermined the inference of defect.
• There was no comparative evidence showing departure from industry standards.

Respondent's Arguments

• It was not necessary to plead or prove the precise mechanism of the defect, only that a defect existed causing the corrosion.
• The motorcycle’s braking system was susceptible to galvanic corrosion after normal use, servicing, and cleaning, which should not have occurred.
• The corrosion was indicative of a defect in design and/or manufacture, even if the precise nature was unidentified.
• The prior history of the motorcycle was immaterial given findings that corrosion developed during the Respondent’s ownership and use.
• There was no need for comparative evidence since the presence of corrosion itself supported an inference of defect.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the evidence and found that the Recorder had correctly identified and addressed the key issues: the existence of galvanic corrosion, whether such corrosion indicated a defect, whether that defect fell within the CPA, and whether the defect caused the accident and injury.

The court emphasised that under section 3 of the CPA, a defect exists if the product’s safety is not what persons generally are entitled to expect, considering all circumstances including marketing, instructions, and time of supply.

Applying the precedent from Ide, the court held that it was not necessary to prove the precise cause of the defect, only that a defect existed causing the corrosion and resulting failure. The motorcycle’s brakes exhibited galvanic corrosion after limited use, proper servicing, and maintenance, which a non-defective product would not have done.

The court found the Recorder’s inferences reasonable and supported by evidence, rejecting the Appellant’s arguments that lack of prior ownership evidence or absence of comparative industry standards undermined the defect finding. The corrosion itself established the defect.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the Recorder’s findings were consistent with the facts and law, and no error of law was demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Respondent’s claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is upheld, confirming that the motorcycle’s front braking system was defective and caused the accident and injury. The Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming existing principles regarding defect under the CPA.