she fell off

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

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?ar...mail_access=on

--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability, with
respect to warnings :

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?ar...mail_access=on

--

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

jtaylor wrote:
"Sandy" wrote in message
...
For those who may wonder about how Europe treats product liability,
with respect to warnings :

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?ar...mail_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 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)

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
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.

Neil Brooks wrote:
"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
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.

wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
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.

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"
wrote in message
...
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)

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.

On 2005-04-07, Neil Brooks wrote:

"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
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.

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

--

John )

On 2005-04-08, (Pete Cresswell) wrote:
Per Neil Brooks:
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 )