Divya & Ors v Toyo Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd (t/a Toyo Tires of Japan) & Anor [2011] EWHC 1993 (QB) (27 July 2011)

Divya & Ors v Toyo Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd (t/a Toyo Tires of Japan) & Anor [2011] EWHC 1993 (QB) (27 July 2011)

On balance of probabilities, the accident was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre due to incomplete bonding of steel cords, resulting from negligence in the manufacturing process by the first defendant. The second defendant was not negligent; no evidence supports external impact or improper driving.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1993
Parties
Claimant: Ms Joshi Divya; Claimant: Ms Monika Madan; Claimant: Mr Dharmendra Joshi; Claimant: Ms Raksha Sanganee; Claimant: Mr Sivanantharajah Kandriah; First Defendant: Toyo Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd (t/a Toyo Tires of Japan); Second Defendant: Mr Kathirgamathan Paranirupasingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Trial Liability Only
Outcome
First defendant found negligent; second defendant acquitted of negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Manufacturing Defect, Product Liability, Evidence, Expert Evidence
Tort Product Liability Negligence Manufacturing Defect Evidence Expert Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Joshi Divya

Claimant

Ms Monika Madan

Claimant

Mr Dharmendra Joshi

Claimant

Ms Raksha Sanganee

Claimant

Mr Sivanantharajah Kandriah

Claimant

Toyo Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd (t/a Toyo Tires of Japan)

First Defendant

Mr Kathirgamathan Paranirupasingham

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Trial Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accident caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre?
  2. 2 Was the defect the result of negligence by the manufacturer (first defendant)?
  3. 3 Was the second defendant negligent in driving or otherwise responsible for the accident?

Ratio Decidendi

On balance of probabilities, the accident was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre due to incomplete bonding of steel cords, resulting from negligence in the manufacturing process by the first defendant. The second defendant was not negligent; no evidence supports external impact or improper driving.

Court Disposition

First defendant found negligent; second defendant acquitted of negligence.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimants against first defendant on liability.
  • Second defendant acquitted of liability.