McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

McGlinchey v General Motors UK (Rev 1) [2012] ScotCS CSIH_91 (04 December 2012)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a defect in the handbrake mechanism, present at the time of supply, caused the accident. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to reject the pursuer's expert evidence as too improbable to establish causation, and the mere fact of product failure was insufficient to infer defect under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Citation
[2012] CSIH 91
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Lesley Anne McGlinchey; Defenders and Respondents: General Motors UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From First Instance Civil Damages Action / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Products, Causation, Burden of Proof, Consumer Protection Act 1987, Product Safety, Contributory Negligence
Product Liability Consumer Protection Tort Defective Products Causation Burden of Proof Consumer Protection Act 1987 Product Safety +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Anne McGlinchey

Pursuer and Reclaimer

General Motors UK Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From First Instance Civil Damages Action / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer proved on a balance of probabilities that a defect in the handbrake mechanism caused the accident under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the alleged defect existed at the time of supply by the manufacturer
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in rejecting the pursuer's expert evidence as to causation

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a defect in the handbrake mechanism, present at the time of supply, caused the accident. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to reject the pursuer's expert evidence as too improbable to establish causation, and the mere fact of product failure was insufficient to infer defect under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused; judgment for defenders (General Motors UK Limited)