I wonder how the Jury was chosen. I never worry about Jury Duty anymore. As soon as they find out what I do for a living, I’m always excused.

I believe they may be federally required, tho I would have to look that up.

Rather, the court held that the speed rating of the tire and the mileage warranty together were an express warranty that the tire would not fail under 122 mph and 40,000 miles. IOW, a breach of warranty case.

Am I reading this correctly, Anderson? The court expects the warranty to be 122mph for 40,000 miles? On it’s face,that physically is not possible. As others have pointed out, there are illegal acts that led to the crash, and I am assuming that since the last Camaro left the assembly line in 2000 (yes, I am aware that Camaro production just started up again about a month ago), this was not a new vehicle. Therefore, it did have wear and tear, possibly severe enough to cause tire failure. With the amount of heat buildup in a tire at speed, a worn, or damaged, or both, tire if just somewhat underinflated and overloaded (by which I mean extreme loading from high speed and a worn suspension component) can “disintegrate”. Impaired driving likely caused the driver to drive over the limit, in a state of slow calculus, unable to execute any evasive/emergency manouvers to deal with a blown tire.

You’re also correct about the ‘speed rating’- the Feds tout it as a consumers’ guide, not a warranty.

My sympathies lay with Goodyear.

Not newsworthy, I suppose.

Rather, the court held that the speed rating of the tire and the mileage warranty together were an express warranty that the tire would not fail under 122 mph and 40,000 miles. IOW, a breach of warranty case.

How the court got a “warranty” out of a tire’s speed rating is a great mystery.

Yes, even a rear tire flat could cause loss of control, but would obviously be much more dangerous at high speeds (I did not read the opinion but wonder what the correct speed for this road/conditons/time of day and the speed limit.) There should be a concern that the tire failed if it was the sole precipitator of the incident, but the main cause for the accident itself was the speed and being drunk.

There is always some inherent risk with driving. A perfectly made vehicle brand new off the lot can still run over something which can cause tire failure and an accident. This is one of the concerns about higher speeds on roadways. High speed, by itself, does not cause an accident, just like a disintegrating tire does not always result in an accident. But, if an accident occurs, the speed can have a very direct effect on possible injuries or death. Not to mention all of the plaintiffs actions contributing to this.

It’s very curios that:
a) someone gets in a car with an expectation of no risk whatsoever,
b) they go well over the speed limit,
c) they are drunk,
d) they decide that they don’t want to take the simplest of prcautions and where their seatbelts,
e) this is all the fault/responsibility/liability of Goodyear.

Well at least someone was “responsible” !!

The jury saw 3 young, victimized, local families/youths. Against the heartless international tire corporation who could have made a better tire, if they weren’t weren’t driven by greed.

So now I guess we go to signing disclaimers when we buy tires, and tires are incrementally more expensive. Maybe we won’t even have lower cost tire alternatives, and new tires will be so expensive that more people will ride around on bald tires, creating more accidents and injury.

A bomb is put in a car to effectuate a murder. I wonder if Bill Posner believes that the tire company is out to kill people. How many non-rollover cases are there of cars going into trees and disintegrating tires?

Please be reasonable Mr. Posner, the expert was talking out of his rear end.