Is my uncle liable?

[salhus]

My uncle, a car mechanic, changed the oil filter, oil, air filter and fuel filter on a car. Four days later the owner contacted my uncle to say the engine had blown because the oil level had been filled excessively (something pointed as a possibility by the AA).

My uncle agreed to check out the car before accepting liability (given the time gap and no actual proof of the cause of engine failure). Instead of taking it to my uncle the owner took it to the dealership who suggested the oil level was excessive and a proper service had not been carried out. However, the cause of the apparently high oil level could actually be a mixture of oil and diesel which had leaked into the oil area (another possibility accepted by the dealership but harder to test). It was not possible to say so unless further checks had been carried out.

Given the dealership suggest IT SEEMS like oil, must my uncle accept liability? Or can he argue that he had not been able to test the fluid to ensure there was not another cause of the engine damage?

Should he have been able to have had access to the car before it had been given to the dealer so that he could test the car (rather than be just given an invoice for the replacement engine)?

[emlett]

he can certainly argue liability where another explanation is available, the burden should usually be on the party who alleges to have to prove its case.

If he is going to claim under insurance for this, then he should contact his insurers to discuss this with them first. If litigation happens, then i would have thought that his insurers would have to be involved as this can get very expensive.