Yep, the nature of lawsuits is that a jury determines who was at fault, if anyone. The rider (or his lawyers) apparently have two theories: that the rim/wheel was defective as sold, or that the bike shop made a faulty recommendation (slim chance), or failed to properly maintain or “diagnose” the wheel when engaged to do so.
They’ll get to dig around among Spesh’s product defect reports and the reason for the redesign and question the bike shop people. It will be a pain in the butt to them. but that’s a cost of doing business.
Trying to say what’s “fair”** at this early juncture, before all of the facts come in, is pure speculation. The bike shop could have missed an obvious crack in the rim, or over-tightened the spokes, or God knows what else. Maybe Spesh knew the rim was over-delicate and redesigned it for that reason. We just don’t know.
Yes, mountain biking is an inherently dangerous undertaking. But here there’s at least some evidence of a failed and possibly defective product and injuries resulting. When you make and sell products specifically designed for people to engage in a dangerous undertaking, suits like this are a cost of doing business.
People who are anti-litigation frequently don’t know what they’re talking about and are sucked in by erroneous and fantastical reporting of certain anomalous lawsuits (the McDonald’s coffee case, for a brilliant example). God forbid they are ever seriously injured as a result of negligence or a defective product.
**Reminds me of my contracts professor, who, when someone said “it isn’t fair” in class, asked “are you God?”