she fell off

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability, with
respect to warnings :

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=31747&email_access=on

--

Can we have a summary for those of us who do not wish to "register" for yet
more spam...

jtaylor said:

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
with respect to warnings :

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=31747&email_access=on

--

Can we have a summary for those of us who do not wish to "register"
for yet more spam...

Reprinting the article without prior permission is illegal in most areas.
Having said that, here it is:
-------------------------------
Foglar-Deinhardstein & Brandstaetter KEG
Austria: Warning Instructions: As Easy as Riding a Bicycle
01 April 2005
Article by Jurgen Brandstatter
The Supreme Court has twice addressed the issue of warning instructions on
products for sale, and has laid down guiding principles. In both cases,
which resulted from accidents with a bicycle and a bottle of sparkling fruit
drink respectively, the consumers' claims were rejected.
Pursuant to the court's reasoning, the appropriate scope and content of such
instructions is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the event that
a producer fails to comply with its obligations regarding warning
instructions, its product is considered to be defective under Article 5 of
the Product Liability Act. Customers must be warned of any dangerous product
features and - if relevant - of the consequences of misuse (although this
guidance applies only if the producer is expected to be aware that the
danger of the feature is likely to be otherwise unknown). The court uses an
objective scale of the expectations of a typical product user for its
assessments.
In the first case before the court (OGH 6 Ob 272/03y, May 27 2004) the
claimant rode a bicycle uphill and attempted to change gears while in a
standing position, the hill being rather steep. The bicyle chain came off
the sprocket wheel, causing the claimant to fall. She suffered a broken arm
and filed for compensation.
The Supreme Court denied the existence of any duty to warn because, during a
test ride at the point of sale, the claimant had presented herself as a
relatively experienced cyclist.
In the second case (OGH 6 Ob 7/03b, February 19 2004) a claimant opened a
bottle of non-alcoholic sparkling fruit drink, marketed as 'Kiddy sparkling
wine', and was hit in the eye by the popping plastic cork. The bottle was
modelled on a regular sparkling wine bottle, with a cork fixed in place by
wire. The bottle had a warning attached that stated: "Caution: bottle is
pressurized! Serve chilled!".
The court rejected the claim on the basis that the defendant had not
violated any duty to warn. It is common knowledge that corks pop at a
certain temperature. This fact may not be so widely known in the case of a
non-alcoholic sparkling beverage, but the characteristic design of the
bottle and its cork, together with the attached warning instructions, left
no room for liability on the part of the producer.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Sandy said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical rulings... (see
article posted one thread above)

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical rulings... (see
article posted one thread above)

Americans would have sued the hill.

Neil Brooks said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product

liability,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical rulings...

(see

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article posted one thread above)

Americans would have sued the hill.

I guess it depends on the circumstances of the above ruling. If the
woman had just come from the bike shop after paying them to tune up,
adjust the bike, and then the chain came off while shifting, she might
have a very valid claim against the shop.

But I suppose if you took a bike to the bike shop to have the brakes
and derailleurs adjusted and the brake cable was not even attached to
the brakes anymore and the rear derailleur was adjusted to allow the
rear derailleur to go into the spokes, and you paid for these
adjustments, and then rode the bike on the road and ended up in an
accident, the bike shop is not to blame.

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sandy wrote:
> For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
> with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical rulings...
(see article posted one thread above)

Americans would have sued the hill.

I guess it depends on the circumstances of the above ruling. If the
woman had just come from the bike shop after paying them to tune up,
adjust the bike, and then the chain came off while shifting, she might
have a very valid claim against the shop.

But I suppose if you took a bike to the bike shop to have the brakes
and derailleurs adjusted and the brake cable was not even attached to
the brakes anymore and the rear derailleur was adjusted to allow the
rear derailleur to go into the spokes, and you paid for these
adjustments, and then rode the bike on the road and ended up in an
accident, the bike shop is not to blame.

What are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself.

It seems the bike shifted off the middle chainring onto the bottom bracket
shell, since the "chain came off." That, IMO, isn't as easily avoided as
preventing the chain from going into the spokes, since there's a positive
stop on the RD whereas the FD just kinda throws the chain off the chainring
onto the smaller one.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product

liability,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical

rulings... (see

Quoted message said:

article posted one thread above)

The law in the United States is not that different. The real
differences is judges versus juries. Most European and
Commonwealth countries have judge trials in civil cases and not
jury trials. The Europeans do not use jurors to design products
and warnings like we do here. -- Jay Beattie.

Neil Brooks said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
with respect to warnings :

If only the US legal system could generate such logical rulings... (see
article posted one thread above)

Americans would have sued the hill.

Naw, there's no money in that. They'd sue the people living on the hill.

--

John ([email hidden])

(Pete Cresswell) said:

Per Neil Brooks:

Quoted message said:

Americans would have sued the hill.

Every time I go to visit the in-laws in Germany, I'm impressed by how much
free-er Germany is that the USA - and it seems to me like it's all around the
less litiguous climate there vs what's going on here.

Walking/cycling for instance: there are very few fences and you can take the
paths through farmland. "Grass-roots freedom", if you will. If there is a
fence, people respect it bc it's assumed there is good reason for it - not just
some lawyer advising the client that somebody might sue.

I'd say that would apply to many other countries, e.g. Canada, Britain,
etc. Here we seem to have traded our freedom merely for "freedom to sue."

--

John ([email hidden])

(Pete Cresswell) said:

Per Neil Brooks:

Quoted message said:

Americans would have sued the hill.

Every time I go to visit the in-laws in Germany, I'm impressed by how much
free-er Germany is that the USA - and it seems to me like it's all around the
less litiguous climate there vs what's going on here.

Um, you might want to check out what the germans have been doing with
laws regarding freedom of assembly and speech lately. The vote of
Bundestag on march 11 of this year is a nice place to start.

For all its faults, we are still doing pretty darn good regarding
civil liberties in this country. Of course we still have nut cases
who think the ACLU is an extremist organization.

Phil said:

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Sandy wrote:
>> For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product

liability,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> with respect to warnings :
>
> If only the US legal system could generate such logical

rulings...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (see article posted one thread above)

Americans would have sued the hill.

I guess it depends on the circumstances of the above ruling. If

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

woman had just come from the bike shop after paying them to tune

up,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

adjust the bike, and then the chain came off while shifting, she

might

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a very valid claim against the shop.

But I suppose if you took a bike to the bike shop to have the

brakes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and derailleurs adjusted and the brake cable was not even attached

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the brakes anymore and the rear derailleur was adjusted to allow

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rear derailleur to go into the spokes, and you paid for these
adjustments, and then rode the bike on the road and ended up in an
accident, the bike shop is not to blame.

What are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself.

It seems the bike shifted off the middle chainring onto the bottom

bracket

Quoted message said:

shell, since the "chain came off." That, IMO, isn't as easily

avoided as

Quoted message said:

preventing the chain from going into the spokes, since there's a

positive

Quoted message said:

stop on the RD whereas the FD just kinda throws the chain off the

chainring

Quoted message said:

onto the smaller one.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

No Mr. Squid, it is you who is changing the story to fit your
pre-conceived notions and "reputation" as a bike shop person. If you
reread the text that you posted above you will come across this quote:

"In the first case before the court (OGH 6 Ob 272/03y, May 27 2004) the

claimant rode a bicycle uphill and attempted to change gears while in a

standing position, the hill being rather steep. The bicyle chain came
off
the sprocket wheel, causing the claimant to fall."

Maybe in your bike shop you use the term sprocket to refer to the
middle chainring. I've usually heard the term sprocket used for the
rear cogs. Where did you invent this idea of the chain coming off the
middle chainring in the above posting by you of the text of the court
judgment? It is funny to see your quote "chain came off." The full
quote is "The bicyle chain came off
the sprocket wheel, causing the claimant to fall." Odd how it reads
very differently when you do not lift selected words to support your
fabricated middle chainring story.

My point is that from the text of the court case that you posted it is
not possible to draw any conclusions about whether this lawsuit was
justified or not. You and another person seemed to imply this. You
being a bike shop person have a financial reason for this view of
course.

Maybe in the lawsuit case the woman was riding up the hill in the
middle chainring and middle sprocket in back. Then shifted from the
middle chainring to the inner chainring. Successfully. Then noticed
the rpms went up too much so she shifted to a smaller sprocket in back
and the chain got jammed between the smallest sprocket and the dropout.
And she crashed. And she had just taken the bike to the bike shop and
paid to have it tuned up, including the derailleurs adjusted. I think
she would have a very valid lawsuit against the bike shop.

Or maybe in the lawsuit the woman was riding in the inner ring on her
double crankset. Up the hill. Then decided to shift to her largest
sprocket in back. And the rear derailleur went in to the spokes and
caused her to crash. And she had just retrieved the bike from the bike
shop after paying them to tune up the bike, including the shifting. I
think she would have a valid lawsuit in this case.

But the text of the court case you posted does not allow one to discern
the details of the actual case. So we cannot accurately judge whether
the lawsuit had merit or not.

Per Neil Brooks:

Quoted message said:

Americans would have sued the hill.

Every time I go to visit the in-laws in Germany, I'm impressed by how much
free-er Germany is that the USA - and it seems to me like it's all around the
less litiguous climate there vs what's going on here.

Walking/cycling for instance: there are very few fences and you can take the
paths through farmland. "Grass-roots freedom", if you will. If there is a
fence, people respect it bc it's assumed there is good reason for it - not just
some lawyer advising the client that somebody might sue.
--
PeteCresswell

Quoted message said:

Phil said:

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product

liability,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> with respect to warnings :
>>
>> If only the US legal system could generate such logical

rulings...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> (see article posted one thread above)
>
> Americans would have sued the hill.

I guess it depends on the circumstances of the above ruling. If

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

woman had just come from the bike shop after paying them to tune

up,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

adjust the bike, and then the chain came off while shifting, she

might

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a very valid claim against the shop.

But I suppose if you took a bike to the bike shop to have the

brakes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and derailleurs adjusted and the brake cable was not even

attached

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the brakes anymore and the rear derailleur was adjusted to allow

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rear derailleur to go into the spokes, and you paid for these
adjustments, and then rode the bike on the road and ended up in

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

accident, the bike shop is not to blame.

You didn't read the text of the ruling, did you. Admirable efforts to
avoid infringing copyright, but a bit futile. The woman was suing the
shop for not fulfilling their duty to warn (in this case, to warn her
not to shift under power on a steep hill in case it derailed the
chain). No mention of their work not being up to standard, no mention
of her asking for any repairs to be done at all, just a new bike
purchase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself.

It seems the bike shifted off the middle chainring onto the bottom

bracket

Quoted message said:

shell, since the "chain came off." That, IMO, isn't as easily

avoided as

Quoted message said:

preventing the chain from going into the spokes, since there's a

positive

Quoted message said:

stop on the RD whereas the FD just kinda throws the chain off the

chainring

Quoted message said:

onto the smaller one.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

No Mr. Squid, it is you who is changing the story to fit your
pre-conceived notions and "reputation" as a bike shop person. If you
reread the text that you posted above you will come across this

quote:

Quoted message said:

"In the first case before the court (OGH 6 Ob 272/03y, May 27 2004)

the

Quoted message said:

claimant rode a bicycle uphill and attempted to change gears while in

a

Quoted message said:

standing position, the hill being rather steep. The bicyle chain came
off
the sprocket wheel, causing the claimant to fall."

Maybe in your bike shop you use the term sprocket to refer to the
middle chainring. I've usually heard the term sprocket used for the
rear cogs.

But this is a court judgement, which may not use the same terminology
as the average bike shop. From what I read in the judgement, I'd say
the most likely failure mode was shifting from middle to small sprocket
under power, which any competent rider should know is likely to throw
the chain off. Your hypotheses are possible, but the most likely one
is the middle-> small chainring shift.

Quoted message said:

But the text of the court case you posted does not allow one to

discern

Quoted message said:

the details of the actual case. So we cannot accurately judge

whether

Quoted message said:

the lawsuit had merit or not.

Well, yes we do, the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge as having no
merit :-)

More specifically, it was dismissed because she was shifting under load
on a steep hill, and an experienced cyclist (which she claimed to be)
should have known that was likely to throw the chain off.

Marvin said:

More specifically, it was dismissed because she was shifting under load
on a steep hill, and an experienced cyclist (which she claimed to be)
should have known that was likely to throw the chain off.

A *real* cyclist would have stayed in the 53t and just gritted it out
;-)

Neil Brooks said:

Marvin said:

More specifically, it was dismissed because she was shifting under
load on a steep hill, and an experienced cyclist (which she claimed
to be) should have known that was likely to throw the chain off.

A *real* cyclist would have stayed in the 53t and just gritted it out
;-)

Or the 44t... gotta be fair, you know.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Marvin said:

Quoted message said:

Phil said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>> For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product
>>>> liability, with respect to warnings :
>>>
>>> If only the US legal system could generate such logical
>>> rulings... (see article posted one thread above)
>>
>> Americans would have sued the hill.
>
> I guess it depends on the circumstances of the above ruling. If
> the woman had just come from the bike shop after paying them to
> tune up, adjust the bike, and then the chain came off while
> shifting, she might have a very valid claim against the shop.
>
> But I suppose if you took a bike to the bike shop to have the
> brakes and derailleurs adjusted and the brake cable was not even
> attached to the brakes anymore and the rear derailleur was
> adjusted to allow the rear derailleur to go into the spokes, and
> you paid for these adjustments, and then rode the bike on the road
> and ended up in an accident, the bike shop is not to blame.

You didn't read the text of the ruling, did you. Admirable efforts to
avoid infringing copyright, but a bit futile. The woman was suing the
shop for not fulfilling their duty to warn (in this case, to warn her
not to shift under power on a steep hill in case it derailed the
chain). No mention of their work not being up to standard, no mention
of her asking for any repairs to be done at all, just a new bike
purchase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself.

It seems the bike shifted off the middle chainring onto the bottom
bracket shell, since the "chain came off." That, IMO, isn't as
easily avoided as preventing the chain from going into the spokes,
since there's a positive stop on the RD whereas the FD just kinda
throws the chain off the chainring onto the smaller one.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

No Mr. Squid, it is you who is changing the story to fit your
pre-conceived notions and "reputation" as a bike shop person. If you
reread the text that you posted above you will come across this
quote:

"In the first case before the court (OGH 6 Ob 272/03y, May 27 2004)
the

claimant rode a bicycle uphill and attempted to change gears while
in a

standing position, the hill being rather steep. The bicyle chain came
off
the sprocket wheel, causing the claimant to fall."

Maybe in your bike shop you use the term sprocket to refer to the
middle chainring. I've usually heard the term sprocket used for the
rear cogs.

But this is a court judgement, which may not use the same terminology
as the average bike shop. From what I read in the judgement, I'd say
the most likely failure mode was shifting from middle to small
sprocket under power, which any competent rider should know is likely
to throw the chain off. Your hypotheses are possible, but the most
likely one is the middle-> small chainring shift.

This is rings true since a crash from a dropped chain onto the BB shell is
much more likely than a crash from a frozen chain between the
cassette/freewheel/spokes, since the rider is pushing hard on the pedals and
will fall forward from lack of pedal resistance. Teeth and stems do not
mix. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the text of the court case you posted does not allow one to
discern the details of the actual case. So we cannot accurately
judge whether the lawsuit had merit or not.

Well, yes we do, the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge as having no
merit :-)

More specifically, it was dismissed because she was shifting under
load on a steep hill, and an experienced cyclist (which she claimed
to be) should have known that was likely to throw the chain off.

Well, some may consider themselves experienced, and may not actually be.
Here in the States we'd have a whole 'nother case about the definition of
"experienced," kinda like how we had a whole case about the definition of
"is."

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article <[email hidden]>,

jtaylor said:

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability, with
respect to warnings :

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=31747&email_access=on

--

Can we have a summary for those of us who do not wish to "register" for yet
more spam...

http://bugmenot.com/ has a login/password for this site.

--
Mike Iglesias Email: [email hidden]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069