Trailer wheel fell off - who's to blame?
Discussion
caelite said:
No what I am saying is that negligence of maintenance is the default stance taken, and that proving that negligence has not occurred in the case of tyre blowouts is extremely difficult for a layman, I would assume the situation would be the same in the event of a bearing failure.
The owner of the tyre has to prove nothing. The injured party who is looking to claim has to do the proving. broken biscuit said:
Asking on behalf of a mate...my wheels haven't fallen off!!
Yesterday on the way home from a drifting event, my friend's trailer wheel fell off, bounced down the road and was brought to a sudden halt by another motorist. The wheel bearing failed. Castle nut and split pin left on the hub along with the inner race and bearing parts, brake drum and wheel nuts still on the wheel and the brake internals scattered and destroyed. Photo evidence of this was taken.
All four trailer wheel bearings were replaced at once, two months ago, and the trailer has only had two outings since. Regardless of who fitted bearings (I think my mate did them himself - they aren't exactly a specialist job), who should take the blame. Insurance details have been exchanged, but I think blame (and therefore the damaged motorist's costs plus repairs) should fall to the bearing supplier or manufacturer. Any advice on how to proceed? I have advised him to use tact and diplomacy, but should he contact his insurers first thing in the morning, or wait out for the suppliers?
You are friggin kidding right? Seriously nobody can be this arrogant can they?Yesterday on the way home from a drifting event, my friend's trailer wheel fell off, bounced down the road and was brought to a sudden halt by another motorist. The wheel bearing failed. Castle nut and split pin left on the hub along with the inner race and bearing parts, brake drum and wheel nuts still on the wheel and the brake internals scattered and destroyed. Photo evidence of this was taken.
All four trailer wheel bearings were replaced at once, two months ago, and the trailer has only had two outings since. Regardless of who fitted bearings (I think my mate did them himself - they aren't exactly a specialist job), who should take the blame. Insurance details have been exchanged, but I think blame (and therefore the damaged motorist's costs plus repairs) should fall to the bearing supplier or manufacturer. Any advice on how to proceed? I have advised him to use tact and diplomacy, but should he contact his insurers first thing in the morning, or wait out for the suppliers?
The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
300bhp/ton said:
You are friggin kidding right? Seriously nobody can be this arrogant can they?
The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
Not true. The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
If he could prove it was 100% due to a faulty bearing, he wouldn't have to show they knowingly sold it as faulty. He wouldn't have to do anything, other than tell the tp that the bearing was faulty and therefore deny any liability on his part. If would then be for the tp to deal with the bearing supplier.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not true.
If he could prove it was 100% due to a faulty bearing, he wouldn't have to show they knowingly sold it as faulty. He wouldn't have to do anything, other than tell the tp that the bearing was faulty and therefore deny any liability on his part. If would then be for the tp to deal with the bearing supplier.
Even if the bearing was faulty, it would be near impossible to prove it was the sole and only cause of such an accident. So I don't think it's really an issue to solve.If he could prove it was 100% due to a faulty bearing, he wouldn't have to show they knowingly sold it as faulty. He wouldn't have to do anything, other than tell the tp that the bearing was faulty and therefore deny any liability on his part. If would then be for the tp to deal with the bearing supplier.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
300bhp/ton said:
You are friggin kidding right? Seriously nobody can be this arrogant can they?
The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
Not true. The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
If he could prove it was 100% due to a faulty bearing, he wouldn't have to show they knowingly sold it as faulty. He wouldn't have to do anything, other than tell the tp that the bearing was faulty and therefore deny any liability on his part. If would then be for the tp to deal with the bearing supplier.
Hmmm, that'd be something to see!
I'd bet that most, if not all, bearing manufacturers would be able to justify their manufacturing process a lot better than the OP's mate could prove he'd fitted the bearing properly.
I'd also bet the failure was because they'd been overtightened when fitted which will likely be the manufacturer's stance and very hard to disprove. It's so easily done if you don't know what you're doing.
REALIST123 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
300bhp/ton said:
You are friggin kidding right? Seriously nobody can be this arrogant can they?
The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
Not true. The only way it would be the bearing companies fault is:
-if you could prove that the accident was 100% due to a fault with their bearing.
Something you'll never be able to do.
And even then, you'd likely need to prove negligence on their behalf for knowling selling a bearing that could cause such an accident.
And even then, it'd still be just an 'accident'.
If he could prove it was 100% due to a faulty bearing, he wouldn't have to show they knowingly sold it as faulty. He wouldn't have to do anything, other than tell the tp that the bearing was faulty and therefore deny any liability on his part. If would then be for the tp to deal with the bearing supplier.
Hmmm, that'd be something to see!
I'd bet that most, if not all, bearing manufacturers would be able to justify their manufacturing process a lot better than the OP's mate could prove he'd fitted the bearing properly.
I'd also bet the failure was because they'd been overtightened when fitted which will likely be the manufacturer's stance and very hard to disprove. It's so easily done if you don't know what you're doing.
HughG said:
Apologies for derailing this slightly, but I tow regularly and have told my insurers about the towbar on the car. In this instance would the car insurance cover the damage to the other vehicle, or should dedicated trailer insurance be in place?
I have checked my insurance documents which sayAdmiral Multicar policy document said:
You will be covered for everything you are legally responsible to pay due to an accident in
your car and:
y someone else is killed or injured
y someone else’s property is damaged – motor third party property damage losses for
private cars is limited to £20,000,000 per occurrence per policy
This cover also applies to an accident involving a single trailer, caravan or broken-down car
you may be towing (as long as you hold the correct driving licence entitlement to do so)
your car and:
y someone else is killed or injured
y someone else’s property is damaged – motor third party property damage losses for
private cars is limited to £20,000,000 per occurrence per policy
This cover also applies to an accident involving a single trailer, caravan or broken-down car
you may be towing (as long as you hold the correct driving licence entitlement to do so)
TooMany2cvs said:
HughG said:
Apologies for derailing this slightly, but I tow regularly and have told my insurers about the towbar on the car. In this instance would the car insurance cover the damage to the other vehicle, or should dedicated trailer insurance be in place?
What does your policy say?Starfighter said:
If you have the pieces then a decent metallographic investigation should be able to determine cause or at least the initiation point certain failure modes would be entirely within the part, other could be influenced by the fitting. Expect to pay north of £500.
What kind of failure mode couldn't be influenced by incorrect fitment?
I'm struggling to understand the failure mode if it is a taper bearing.
If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
REALIST123 said:
Starfighter said:
If you have the pieces then a decent metallographic investigation should be able to determine cause or at least the initiation point certain failure modes would be entirely within the part, other could be influenced by the fitting. Expect to pay north of £500.
What kind of failure mode couldn't be influenced by incorrect fitment?
Non-metallic inclusion in the housing resulting in a fracture?
Starfighter said:
REALIST123 said:
Starfighter said:
If you have the pieces then a decent metallographic investigation should be able to determine cause or at least the initiation point certain failure modes would be entirely within the part, other could be influenced by the fitting. Expect to pay north of £500.
What kind of failure mode couldn't be influenced by incorrect fitment?
Non-metallic inclusion in the housing resulting in a fracture?
This is what I meant. In both those examples failure would be accelerated by incorrect fitment.
rxe said:
I'm struggling to understand the failure mode if it is a taper bearing.
If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
I assume you meant that the hub won't come over the castellated nut? I thought this but I'm not so sure; I think there are designs where, if you lost all the rollers, the outer races and therefore the hub would come over the inner face and the nut/thrust washer. If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
REALIST123 said:
rxe said:
I'm struggling to understand the failure mode if it is a taper bearing.
If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
I assume you meant that the hub won't come over the castellated nut? I thought this but I'm not so sure; I think there are designs where, if you lost all the rollers, the outer races and therefore the hub would come over the inner face and the nut/thrust washer. If you over or under tighten them they will fail quickly, but they will not detach from the stub axle because you can't actually fit the stub over the castle nut, let alone the washer under the nut. Is the big washer still there? If it is, then something very odd has happened - you could asssemble the thing with no bearing at all, it would run like crap, but it would stay on.
If he left the washer out, and the design has a tiny castle nut .... maybe.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff