MORISON v PECK AEROFAKO BV v PECK [1992] NSWCA 163

The crash was caused by a sudden loss of pressure in the bike's rear tyre, which was materially caused by the product Finilec; the manufacturer Aerofako failed to provide an adequate warning regarding the risk of deflation during the test drive, rendering it liable in negligence. The seller, Morison, sold the product with an implied condition of reasonable fitness for purpose, which was breached. The factual and expert evidence supported these findings, and the trial judge's reasoning was sufficient.

Parties: Respondent: Mark Peck; Appellant: James and Lynda Morison; Appellant: Aerofako BV
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 03 September 1992
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed in respect of liability; varied as to quantum of damages
Legal Topics: Product Liability, Sale of Goods, Damages, Causality, Duty to Warn

Torts Contracts Product Liability Sale of Goods Damages Causality Duty to Warn

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Mark Peck

Respondent

James and Lynda Morison

Appellant

Aerofako BV

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the product was reasonably fit for its purpose
2 Whether adequate warning was given regarding the use of the product
3 Whether the use of Finilec caused the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed in respect of liability; varied as to quantum of damages

Orders

Judgment below for $556,777 set aside; judgment entered for $535,177 as at 5 November 1990
Appellants to bear respondent's costs of trial and appeal