This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Romano (P) bought a bike from Ann & Hope Factory Outlet, Inc. (D). As P was riding the bike down a hill, the brakes failed, causing an accident and injuring her. P claimed that the accident was caused by a defect in the design of the brake chamber. Mandell, a consulting engineer, examined the bike two years after the accident. The results of his examination supported P's claims. P brought suit, offering this expert testimony about the brake mechanism's condition. After D objected, P tried to show that there had been no substantial change in the bike's condition between the accident and the examination by Mandell. After the accident, the bike was stored in P's home before it was delivered to Costerus, a mechanical engineer. After Costerus tested the brake, he reported that there was never a total loss of braking power. A few weeks later, the bike was returned to P's storeroom, where it remained until Mandell's examination. D continued to object, but the trial judge refused to admit the testimony of Mandell because P had not established that there was no change in the bike's condition. He directed a verdict in favor of D. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.