Chicago Injury Lawyer Blog
A tire defect case is a specific type of product liability claim where the plaintiff alleges that a defective or blown tire caused an accident and resulting injuries. To succeed in a tire defect case, the plaintiff must prove the following:
- The tire was defective.
- The defect made the tire unreasonably dangerous.
- The defect existed when the tire left the manufacturer’s control.
- The defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damages.
The Tire Manufacturing Process and How Defects Lead to Failures
The tire manufacturing process is a complex, multi-stage operation that requires precision at every step to ensure safety and durability. Tires are composed of several layers, including natural and synthetic rubber, steel belts, polyester cords, and chemical adhesives. These materials are combined through processes such as extrusion, assembly, vulcanization, and final inspection, each of which plays a critical role in the tire’s integrity.
During extrusion, raw rubber is shaped into strips for the tread and sidewalls, which are then layered with steel belts and polyester cords during assembly. The vulcanization process cures the rubber by applying high heat and pressure, chemically bonding the layers to harden the rubber while maintaining its flexibility. Vulcanization is particularly critical, as improper bonding during this stage can lead to weak connections between layers. According to Failure Analysis of Tire Tread Separations, such defects often result in tread separation, where the tire’s outer layer detaches from the body under stress.
Defects such as air pockets, uneven heat application, or weak chemical bonding during vulcanization can severely compromise the tire’s structural integrity. Defect Classification of Radius Shaping highlights how these issues frequently cause catastrophic failures like blowouts and rollovers, which often occur at high speeds. Research into tire defect cases underscores the importance of quality control, as the complexity of tire construction makes the product inherently vulnerable to manufacturing errors.
Common Types of Tire Defects
Tire defects generally fall into three categories:
- Design Defects:
These defects result from inherent flaws in the tire’s design, making all tires of that model unreasonably dangerous.
Example: A tire with an inadequate tread pattern that reduces traction on wet roads, increasing the likelihood of hydroplaning.
- Manufacturing Defects:
These defects occur during the production process when a specific tire deviates from its intended design.
Example: A tire with weak spots caused by air pockets or contamination during vulcanization.
- Failure to Warn:
A manufacturer’s failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions about proper tire use can also form the basis of a claim.
Example: Failing to warn consumers about the dangers of using mismatched tires or operating with underinflated tires.
Why Tire Defect Cases Are Highly Technical
- The Role of Physical Evidence
The tire itself is the cornerstone of a tire defect case. Preserving the product is critical to allow both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s experts to analyze the tire for signs of defects, such as tread separation or sidewall failure. Failure to preserve the tire can lead to claims being dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Example:
In a case involving a blowout, if the plaintiff discards the defective tire, the defendant cannot inspect it to challenge the allegations. Without the tire, proving a defect and its role in the accident becomes nearly impossible.
- Complexity of Tire Analysis
Tires are composed of multiple layers and materials that interact in highly technical ways. Analyzing these layers requires expertise in fields such as tire engineering, chemistry, and failure analysis.
Example:
In a tread separation case, experts must examine the bonding between the steel belts and rubber layers to determine whether the separation was caused by a manufacturing defect, a road hazard, or improper maintenance. This analysis often involves laboratory testing and high-resolution imaging.
- Causation and Competing Theories
Defendants in tire defect cases frequently argue that the accident was caused by factors unrelated to the tire, such as road hazards, driver error, or poor maintenance. Plaintiffs must present clear evidence linking the defect to the accident.
Example:
A driver loses control of a vehicle after a blowout. The manufacturer argues that the tire was underinflated, causing the failure. The plaintiff’s legal team demonstrates through expert testimony that the blowout was caused by a manufacturing defect in the tire’s sidewall, unrelated to inflation pressure.
- Compliance with Industry Standards
Tire manufacturers often defend themselves by arguing that their products comply with industry standards set by organizations like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that compliance with these standards does not absolve the manufacturer of liability if the tire was still unreasonably dangerous.
Example:
In a rollover accident caused by tread separation, experts show that while the tire met NHTSA standards, the manufacturer failed to incorporate a more durable bonding process used by competitors, making the tire prone to failure.
- The Need for Expert Testimony
Tire defect cases rely heavily on expert testimony to explain complex technical concepts to the court. Experts in tire design, failure analysis, and accident reconstruction are often required to establish how the defect caused the accident.
Example:
An accident reconstruction expert uses crash data and physical evidence from the scene to show how a tread separation led to a vehicle rollover, directly causing the plaintiff’s injuries.
Legal and Evidentiary Challenges of Tire Defect Cases
- Preserving the Tire
Preserving the defective tire is essential to the success of a product liability claim. Courts may dismiss cases where the tire is lost or discarded, as it prevents the defendant from conducting an independent inspection.
Case Example:
Illinois courts have routinely dismissed claims after the plaintiff discarded the product, holding that the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to refute the allegations.
- Addressing Spoliation
Spoliation occurs when evidence is destroyed or altered. Courts may impose severe penalties for spoliation, including dismissal of the case or adverse inference instructions to the jury.
Case Example:
A plaintiff alleges that a defective tire caused a rollover but repaired the tire before filing the lawsuit. The defendant argues spoliation, claiming the repairs compromised the evidence.
How an Experienced Illinois Defective Product Attorney Can Help After a Tire Failure
Tire defect cases require substantial resources, technical expertise, and legal skill. At John J. Malm & Associates, we help clients navigate these challenges by:
- Preserving Evidence: Ensuring that the tire and other critical evidence are preserved in their post-accident condition.
- Retaining Qualified Experts: Collaborating with leading experts in tire design, manufacturing, and failure analysis.
- Conducting Thorough Investigations: Examining recall records, manufacturing processes, and compliance with industry standards to identify defects.
- Proving Causation: Connecting the defect to the accident and injuries through expert testimony and physical evidence.
- Overcoming Defense Strategies: Anticipating and countering arguments from manufacturers about improper use or maintenance.
“Tire defect cases are some of the most technically demanding product liability claims. Manufacturers often bring significant resources to defend these cases, so having an experienced legal team is essential. At John J. Malm & Associates, we are committed to leveling the playing field and fighting for justice on behalf of injured clients.” – John J. Malm, Illinois defective product lawyer
Contact the Top-Rated Illinois Product Liability Lawyers at John J. Malm & Associates
Tire defect cases are highly technical and require a deep understanding of manufacturing processes, defect analysis, and legal strategy. From preserving evidence to proving causation, every step in the process demands meticulous attention to detail.
At John J. Malm & Associates, we have extensive experience handling complex product liability cases, including those involving tire defects. With offices in Naperville and St. Charles, we are dedicated to seeking justice for clients and holding negligent manufacturers accountable.
Contact us today for a free consultation. Let us help you navigate the complexities of your tire defect case and pursue the compensation you deserve.