Traction is one of the most important factors in keeping a car operating safely on the road, and good traction starts with having sufficient tread on a vehicle's tires. Whether a motorist is facing ideal weather conditions or wet ones, tread depth makes all the difference. That also means that one of the very first things an experienced car accident lawyer like those at Dozier Law Group checks when assessing a case is whether or not the presumed at-fault driver's vehicle had bald tires.
Bald tires carry an additional risk: potential blowouts. Even on a perfectly dry day, a bald tire is thin enough that it could explode under pressure. This is especially true on a hot summer day. Throw in other concerns like emergency braking at highway speeds or high winds, and it's easy to see how a simple lack of fresh tires can lead to a catastrophic accident.
If you were involved in an incident with a driver whose vehicle had balding tires, you need to protect your rights. Victims should understand what balding tires are, what the potential consequences can be, and how this affects a possible injury claim.
Generally, a bald tire is one that would not pass the inspection standard in most U.S. states that require vehicle inspections. That typically means a tire with 2/32" or less of tread depth. In other words, the distance from the main part of the tire to the top of the tread ridge is 2/32 of an inch. Yes, the industry standard is to call it 2/32" rather than reducing the fraction to 1/16.
Why does this matter? The law always wants to have some sense of equal application to everyone. Consequently, the standard for what counts as a bald tire needs to be applicable as evenly as possible across drivers, conditions, and vehicles.
It also matters because a repeatable standard makes it easier for claimants to point at the conduct of defendants and say that there was negligence. If a person knowingly ignored the fact that they were driving on bald tires, then a claimant can hold that up as strong evidence of neglecting to care for the vehicle's maintenance.
Notably, this also increases the circle of parties that might be liable for ignoring bald tires. If a mechanic or a tire shop ignored the tire condition and put the car out on the road, then you may be able to hold them liable. This theory of negligence is far more prevalent in cases involving commercial vehicles, especially incidents involving semis and other trucks.
A major factor in presenting this kind of argument as part of an insurance claim or a lawsuit is documenting that the tires were in bad shape. Your attorney will likely want to check the condition of the tires on the other party's vehicle directly. Many law offices send someone like an investigator or a paralegal to get photos. They sometimes use a penny as a reference, inserting the coin into the tread to show the wear.
They will also check for related tire problems, such as uneven wear, bulges, and cracks. These often further show that the vehicle lacked sufficient maintenance for safe operation.
A lawyer will want to check the tire type, too. Manufacturer recalls provide further evidence in cases involving bald tires. If a tire shop sold a recalled model of tires to a customer, that may be an argument for bringing a claim against the shop. For example, a brand might have noticed an unusual number of tire blowouts due to unexpectedly rapid wear. Failing to pull the recalled tires out of inventory is a possible form of negligence.
In some cases, video can also be helpful. A traffic camera could show the moment that a tire blew out. Likewise, it could show the car behaving erratically before the accident because the tires didn't have enough traction. This is further evidence that neglect of the tires may have contributed to an accident.
Insurance companies and courts take the role of bald tires in accident cases seriously. If a driver failed to take sufficient precautions, they may be liable for driving on tires that they should have replaced. The legal consequences tend to follow from injury claims through the insurance system and legal judgments through the civil courts.
Bald tires are especially strong evidence when it comes to a defendant's percentage contribution to liability for what happened. Most U.S. states use a 51% standard, meaning that a defendant had to be responsible for more than half of what happened in order to be liable for paying damages. California is a notable exception.
Comparative negligence is important because it determines how much of the overall damages the defendant will pay. Suppose you suffered $100,000 worth of damages. If the defendant was 51% liable, then they would pay $51,000.
This is because the courts assume that very few forms of liability are 100% one-sided. For example, a victim might have been going ten miles an hour over the speed limit. Therefore, the victim contributed some overall negligence to the accident.
Bald tires on a vehicle make it harder for the defendant to point to the victim's comparative contribution. Operating a vehicle with bald tires is just highly negligent. Even if there were other factors, maintaining safe contact with the road for traction is as important as keeping the brake system in good condition. Neglecting the tires puts a lot more liability on the defendant.
A car accident lawyer can help you make sense of how much a defendant's bald tires contributed to what happened. Even if you don't think you have a strong case, it is worth exploring the legal possibilities.
Supriyo Khan
Supriyo Khan
Supriyo Khan
Supriyo Khan
Want to add a comment?
