Chuck M 

I'm betting unless the OP did something unreasonable or neglectful Wapner would side with the OP. And the OP didn’t do anything unreasonable or neglectful in my opinion. But this would make a good People’s Court episode.

Polaris OBark

Yes, except the OP did the right thing (possibly going well beyond) and presents as a moral agent and upstanding citizen, which makes for really bad "reality" TV.

livedarklions

I once test drove a private sale used car, and only discovered while it was moving that the brakes didn't work. Why the dashboard warning light didn't go on, I have no idea. The seller may have disabled the light for all I know. Fortunately, I didn't get up to any significant speed before I figured it out.

Koyote

Well, according to some of the posters in this thread, you broke the brakes and were morally obligated to buy the car.

livedarklions

I ain't getting into that argument, but I'm pretty sure no one's saying that.

Dominae

According the the law, the title to the bike still resides with the seller even though the seller gave permission to the buyer to test ride it. Under those circumstances the risk of loss remains with the seller. The parties could have agreed to reallocate the liability for the test ride to the buyer but they didn’t so the default rules remain in place.

urbanknight

The more I read my first post in this thread, the more I realize it seems like I said that. Didn't mean to, though.

njkayaker

Read it again! You really didn't say "you broke it; you bought it" (which one person literally said and another more-or-less said it). Your comment was more nuanced.

I have no idea how livedarklions missed post 2.

livedarklions

I don't think you did, and I don't think my buying the car was implied in anyone's version of "you break it, you bought it".

I'm taking the op at face value, where there's a situation where the op really wasn't sure he didn't actually break it and I think it's quite possible that the seller's surrogate didn't know there was anything wrong with the bike so would probably think op did break it. In my situation, I knew I hadn't done anything wrong and I was quite sure the seller had to know how bad the car was. Frankly, I was pissed he'd knowingly put someone in danger like that.

TBH, the op's "dilemma" is pretty much a non-issue because he thought the price really wasn't too far off the value of the broken bike. This isn't like shattering pottery and paying full price, it's more like not getting a few bucks knocked off because of a mishap.

zandoval 

Bravo... You did the right thing. Hat's off ta ya...

You had no injuries other then the rear wheel on your new bike. Let's get ta fixing that bugger!!!

Herzlos

I think that's the crux of it, you liked the bike and price anyway.

It's a tough issue otherwise, as you likely exposed a defect on the ride which caused a lot of damage, and could potentially have been mitigated by testing the shifting out in advance. Generally I'd go with the person breaking it paying for it unless it was an obvious defect.

Generally if I'm buying an older bike I tend to check everything works and finish with a brief test ride. A folding maintenance stand makes life a lot easier but generally the seller is happy to hold the rear wheel off the ground whilst you work through the gears.

Bald Paul

Let's add some fuel to the debate, shall we?

Suppose the OP took the bike out for his test ride. While shifting, the chain dropped into the wheel (which usually means a mis-adjusted stop on the RD), causing the OP to crash heavily and break his collarbone.

Does the OP pay for the bike? Does the seller pay for the medical treatment? Enquiring minds want to know.

FWIW, last time I sold a bike, I put it on a repair stand, showed the buyer that all the gears, brakes, wheels, and steering parts were working as they should, then took it off the stand and held it while he sat on it to check the fit. He asked to take it for a test ride, and I told him to place the asking price, in cash, in my hand. If he brought it back in the same condition it left and didn't like it for any reason, he'd get his money back. However, I made it clear that if it came back crashed or damaged, he bought it.

tkamd73 

Pictures, can we see the bike please? Sounds like a cool ride!
Tim

Inusuit

But the point of the post is to have a discussion about liability for damage BEFORE the test ride.

njkayaker

The problem is that some people avoided discussing the complicated actual issue and imagined it to be the simpler case ("crashing or dropping" the bike) just so they could respond with the not-so-clever "you broke it; you bought it".

The case wasn't one where the OP "crashed or dropped" the bike. And, I doubt, that anybody (including the OP) would have thought that somebody "crashing or dropping" the bike wouldn't be responsible.

Koyote

Yup. And at least one poster offered this gem, about how a buyer is responsible AFTER purchasing an item. Completely OT:

It all makes a pretty simple situation seem much more complicated than it really is.

livedarklions

OK, so just the liability question. I'm not going to research this, but I would bet that the torts question is whether you as seller acted negligently when you allowed them to test ride it. So, for example, if you knew of a non-obvious (to the test-rider) defect in the bike that might affect safety and you allowed them to ride it without telling them about said defect, I believe you could be on the hook for any injuries that may have resulted. There's a subtler question of whether you "should have known" about the defect, but I suspect as a private seller, there's not that much expectation in that regard.

Bald Paul

Interesting.
Now, what about the other side of things? If the OP test rode the bike and crashed it due to an unknown/unseen defect in the bike itself, is he responsible for the purchase? It wasn't something he did intentionally. Had the seller told him "Hey, don't shift into the big gear because sometimes the chain jumps" and he did it anyway, that's another issue.
Imagine purchasing a used car. The seller tells you, "Hey, don't go too fast on the test drive, the brake hoses are bad." You fly down the street and slam on the brakes, popping that bad hose. Unable to stop at the stop sign, you sail into the intersection and slam into another car. Now, let's say the seller knew the brakes were iffy, and didn't warn you. Or, the seller was unaware of the brakes and they suddenly failed on the test drive. Hmmmm.

livedarklions

I think the way I'd see it is the risk of an unknown defect causing harm to the bike is on the seller so no I don't think the OP could have been forced to buy the bike. Best guess, cuz I really think this case is too iffy and low stakes to care.

In the brake hose story, both of you are idiots for putting that car on the road. I'd be a lot more worried about being sued by someone I could hit with the brakeless car. My guess is the injured 3rd party would sue both of you.

Sudden unexpected mechanical failure--who knows? I know I ain't buying the car unless I was driving unreasonably regardless of failure. No idea on the 3rd party liability. Interesting jury question.

GhostRider62

Buyer removed the Dork Disc? Isn't that a crime or is it the other way? I forget.

Seller is guilty.

OP is a nice guy.