X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The bad publicity over the failures of Firestone tires may be affecting actions against other tiremakers. On two successive days in April, Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. was hit with a $9.7 million verdict in Texas and Continental General Tire was hammered with a $55.32 million jury award in California, providing the latest indications that this is not the best time to be a tire company. Lawsuits claiming failures in tires have become “the tort du jour,” said defense attorney John Bell of Chicago’s Johnson & Bell. “It’s like a feeding frenzy. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are looking through their inventory, seeing if any of their cases can be turned into a tire case.” Because of widespread reports of Firestone tire-tread separations causing accidents, he said, “the prospective jury pool is now sensitized to charges of bad tires and coverups and defense lawyers have to deal with this psychology.” Any increase in lawsuits against tire companies is not being caused by plaintiffs’ attorneys attacking a newly vulnerable industry, countered Brian J. Panish of Santa Monica, Calif.’s Greene, Broillet, Taylor, Wheeler & Panish, the plaintiffs’ counsel in the trial against General Tire. The suits are a reflection of practices in the industry which are creating blow-out-prone tires, he said. “Tire manufacturers are trying to produce too many tires,” he said. “The tires are being driven at higher speeds and the tire makers haven’t improved the designs” to handle higher speeds. The verdict in California was the largest ever against a tire manufacturer in a tread-separation case. In June 1996, plaintiff Cynthia Lampe was driving a 1993 Ford Taurus when “the left rear tire tread separated and came flying off the tire, causing her to lose control of the car,” Panish said. Lampe was rendered quadriplegic; her mother, Sylvia Cortez, was also injured. Lampe and her parents sued Continental General Tire, maker of the AmeriTech ST tire on the Taurus, contending defects in the design and manufacture of the tire. The tire on the Taurus was manufactured at General Tire’s Mount Vernon, Ill., plant, said plaintiffs’ attorney Taras Kick of Los Angeles’ The Kick Law Firm. “The plant management routinely ordered the floors swept up, then instead of dumping the waste, worked it back into the rubber mix.” This contaminated the tires, he said. The plaintiffs also contended, said Panish, that “the insulation strips on the tires were not thick enough,” and that General Tire “didn’t use belt wraps to prevent tread separation.” “There were no defects in the tire,” said defense counsel Walter Yoka of Los Angeles’ Yoka & Smith. The separation was caused by “prior impact damage,” which likely occurred several hundred miles before the accident, he said. Whatever the contamination, he said, “this did not cause or initiate the separation.” The other AmeriTech ST tires on the Taurus, he added, “showed no evidence of any separation.” But, on April 13, a Los Angeles jury ordered Continental General Tire to pay $55.32 million, including $49.85 million to Lampe. The jury found defects in the manufacture of the AmeriTech, but no design flaws. Lampe v. Continental General Tire, BC 3131 (L.A. Super. Ct). Yoka said that the publicity over the Firestone tires “may have bled over into our case, but it’s hard to be certain. I think it’s fair to say that the monumental amount of publicity has had some impact on the ability of a tire manufacturer to get a fair result.” General Tire is filing motions to set aside the verdict. In the suit against Cooper Tire, the plaintiffs also charged that a tire separation caused the accident, which killed four people and injured three others, reported plaintiffs’ attorney James F. Scherr of El Paso, Texas’ Scherr, Legate & Ehrlich. Cooper claimed that the accident was caused by the alleged “cocaine impairment of the driver and the pre-accident puncture of the tire,” said Cooper spokesperson Pat Brown. On April 12, an El Paso jury awarded $9.7 million to the van driver, who had been injured, and to the estates of three of the passengers who died. The other claims had been previously resolved. Mendez v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co., 974119 (Co. Ct., El Paso Co., Texas). Brown would not speculate on the Firestone effect on the El Paso trial. She said that the company would appeal.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.