This case involved a motorcycle accident that occurred while Plaintiff was returning
from a trip to Laughlin. Plaintiff was riding as a passenger on Defendant’s motorcycle
when the rear spokes failed ejecting Plaintiff off the motorcycle.

Defendant had purchased the subject motorcycle from Defendant motorcycle shop
and then purchased the spokes for the motorcycle from Defendant shop owner who
installed the spokes. Based on information and belief, the manufacturer-distributor of the
spokes were Defendant manufacturer.

Prior to leaving on his trip to Laughlin, Defendant motorcycle rider had taken the
subject motorcycle to Defendant’s shop for a safety inspection since the bike had a missing
spoke on the rear rim. Defendant motorcycle rider had informed the service writer that he
was going to Laughlin Run and that he had noticed that a spoke had broken from the rear
wheel. During the same visit, the service writer also informed Defendant Motorcycle rider
that the subject motorcycle was due for the 1000 mile service and the service was
performed.

The employee of Defendant motorcycle shop admitted that he checked Defendant
Motorcycle rider’s spoke tightness during the 1,000 service, making minor adjustments to
the spokes as necessary. When Defendant motorcycle rider picked up his motorcycle from
Defendant’s motorcycle shop, the service writer informed Defendant motorcyclist that
“Maybe we’ll see you in Laughlin” and that he was “good to go.” Additionally, in the
recommendation section of the repair invoice, the motorcycle shop Defendant provided to
the motorcyclist the vague and ambiguous notation that “everything on service seems
good, customer has one missing spoke on rear rim.” When Defendant motorcyclist
reviewed the recommendation section, he interpreted the recommendation to mean that
a safety inspection had been performed and the spoke was inclusive in that inspection.

In route to Laughlin, several additional spokes broke. Defendant motorcyclist
stopped at another motorcycle shop and had the spokes repaired.
When returning from Laughlin, Nevada to California on the I-40 highway at
approximately 65 mph, the rear wheel spokes broke, puncturing the rear tire causing the
motorcycle to loose control and eject plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s motorcycle expert who had forty-two (42) years of experience in the field of
maintenance and repair of motorcycles was of the opinion that even with one missing spoke,
if the Subject Spokes had been properly tightened and trued and if no manufacturing
defect existed, the Subject Spokes would not have broken leading to the subject accident.
Additionally, defendants failed to properly warn Defendant motorcyclist that the Subject
Spokes which, were after-market stainless steel spokes, were not as strong as stock spokes.
The court in Janofsky v. Garland, (1941) 42 Cal. App. 2d 655, 658 held that when a
[person/entity] makes repairs and gives a deceptive appearance of safety and leads one to use the
[product] in a way which but for the repairs one would recognize to be dangerous, the [person or
entity] is liable for resulting injuries.

Following the accident, Plaintiff had to be air-lifted to the hospital in Needles,
California for emergency care and then transferred to Hoag Memorial Hospital with a
comminuted right olecranon fracture. At Hoag Memorial Hospital, Plaintiff had to
underwent surgery involving a open reduction internal fixation of her right olecranon
fracture.

During surgery the fracture fragments from the fracture were identified and noted
to be severely comminuted. Portions of the bone had to removed. The fragments were
mobilized and held in place with K wires. Additionally, wires were placed through the bone
and then around the fracture and under the triceps tendon. Pins were inserted to stabilize
the fractures. Following the surgical procedure Ms. Del Grosso had to undergo physical
therapy.