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)

The accident was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre, specifically incomplete bonding of the steel cords due to inadequate penetration by rubber and/or improper curing, which resulted from negligence in the manufacturing process by the first defendant. The second defendant was not negligent in driving, and no external impact or other cause was established.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1993 (QB)
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
Common Law Negligence Claim / Trial on Primary Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants against the first defendant; second defendant acquitted of negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Manufacturing Defect, Product Liability, Burden of Proof, Inference of Negligence
Tort Law Product Liability Negligence Manufacturing Defect Burden of Proof Inference of Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Common Law Negligence Claim / Trial on Primary Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre produced by the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was negligent in the manufacture of the tyre
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant was negligent in the driving of the vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tyre, specifically incomplete bonding of the steel cords due to inadequate penetration by rubber and/or improper curing, which resulted from negligence in the manufacturing process by the first defendant. The second defendant was not negligent in driving, and no external impact or other cause was established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants against the first defendant; second defendant acquitted of negligence.

Orders

  • First defendant found liable in negligence for manufacturing defect causing the accident.
  • Second defendant found not negligent; no liability.