Advertise | Subscribe | Contact Us | Connect with us      
 

Dealer Hit for Installing Aged, Recalled Firestone Tire

March 22, 2010
Bookmark this website Bookmark this website
A Southern California dealer was hit with an $18 million judgment last week, with the jury finding in favor of an 11-year-old boy killed in a crash attributed to a previously recalled Firestone tire.

American Tire Depot was found negligent for installing the 12-year-old tire – the vehicle’s spare tire – on the Ford Explorer involved in the accident.

The May 2006 accident happened on a freeway near Riverside, Calif., when the tire allegedly suffered a tread separation.

The family claimed they took the Explorer to the dealer for two new tires, but the American Tire Depot location sold them one tire and installed the spare on the other wheel position.

According to the family’s attorney, “In January 2006, Ramon Moreno Sr. brought the family's 1994 Ford Explorer to American Tire Depot to replace two rear tires. ATD, a Firestone dealer, advised Mr. Moreno to rotate the spare, a recalled Firestone Radial ATX, onto the vehicle and sold him one new tire. The Moreno family, who purchased the Explorer used in 2005, was unaware that the Firestone spare was 12 years old and part of the massive 2000 Firestone recall.”

During the trial, an ABC New report said, “the jury was presented with evidence showing that both Ford and Firestone have issued bulletins on aged tires. In 2005, Bridgestone Americas sent out a technical bulletin to its dealers that said, ‘It is recommended that all tires (including spare tires) that were manufactured more than ten (10) years previous be replaced with new tires.’”

Also in 2005, “Ford Motor Co. issued an advisory about aged tires, stating, ‘Tires degrade over time, even when they are not being used.’ Ford recommended replacing tires ‘after 6 years of normal service.’”

The jury found the tire dealer was 85% liable for the boy’s death. The Moreno family had previously settled their case against Bridgestone Americas.
Submit a Comment   Legacy Comments
avatar   KLYDE   star   3/25/2010   12:44 PM

WHAT HAPPENED TO A DRIVER ,DRIVING RESPONSIBLY AND IN CONTROL OF THE YOUR VEHICLE.

NOT DOING 90 WITH STEREO BLARING AND AND YOUR HEAD IN THE CLOUDS.TO ROLL THE VEHICLE OVER A FLAT TIRE IS IRRESPONSIBLE.BUT THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE IT SOMEONE ELSES FAULT,INSTEAD OF

THEY'RE OWN RESPONSILITY.IT'S THEY'RE CASH COW!




avatar   don otto   star   3/23/2010   9:06 AM

Come on!! Any dealer DUMB enough in todays day and age to do some thing or allow an employee to not know-"The 10 year rule" Should be selling fruit- I could not live with the responsability of KILLING SOME ONE'S CHILD FOR BEING "STUPID"

My policy is 5years old "recomend" 10 yrs old "buy new or sorry I could not help you today" PERIOD..




avatar   Red   star   3/23/2010   8:52 AM

Tammy and Mike, they are getting 18,000,000 because their son was killed. It has nothing to do with being a 'picky' customer. It has to do with the responsibility of the shop, and being negilent in mounting a 12-year old RECALLED tire onto the truck for normal service. Bottom line is the tire dealer is responsible in this case, and should just accept it. Though I do find interesting that the Moreno's apparently also sued Bridgestone/Firestone.



avatar   dieseltaylor   star   3/23/2010   4:28 AM

Seems to me that the dealer is always between a rock and a hard place with recalled tires. It would be nice if the tire industry would get on with the RFID tagging they have agreed on so that a very fast electronic check could be made on all tires before fitting to see if they were subject to a recall.



avatar   buk   star   3/22/2010   9:16 PM

It didn't say, but was it a 4wd vehicle? If so, why mix tires on the same axle?



avatar   Eric   star   3/22/2010   6:16 PM

As a dealer it is your resposibility to inform people of the dangers of a aged tire, that could have been any branded tire under that vehicle and could have had the same outcome, no matter what the customer believes when you try and talk them out of using a old tire you know you are doing what is in the best interest of your customer.



avatar   ray   star   3/22/2010   2:53 PM

We still see those ATX's in the spare cradles. Happens when the customer replaced his tires prior to the recall. I will bet the dealer didn't just rotate but rather mounted the ATX on alum wheel. Wasn't like the AT's, ie, 235/75/15 with certain code. Every one of those ATX's got recalled. Sad thing for the Morenos. My son is worth more than every single dollar ever made. It didn't take a lawyer for me to figure that out.



avatar   tammy   star   3/22/2010   1:40 PM

This is rediculous. I have seen what customers want to do to their vehicles to chintz. Most of which we refuse to do. They always pull the "rip off" attitude. Why these people are getting 18M is beyond me. Who knows what lawyer will find wrong with what we do. This judgement only reinforces the lawsuit mentality.



avatar   LBJ   star   3/22/2010   1:29 PM

I'm not sure if the dealer was sued, but they are liable as well. All dealerships that sell used cars have to perform a smog and safety on the vehicles. Obviously the safey portion wasn't done or it was overlooked. Looks like another negligence suit that the dealer will settle.



I do agree that the customer probably wanted to save money by rotating their spare tire in the mix. ATD probably did tell them that they did not recommend using that tire, thats why they weren't 100% at fault.



All dealers should have a document drafted by a lawyer that customers have to sign. This way it decreases any possible issues.




avatar   Mike   star   3/22/2010   12:18 PM

Today, we see another miracle. A cheapskate customer has what he deserved, $18 mils. What a rip off to a legitimate business.



avatar   TL   star   3/22/2010   10:51 AM

The reality, most likely, is the customer wanted the spare brought down so he/she'd only have to buy 1 new tire, and then would keep the best tire coming off for a spare. In the industry, we see it all the time and balance the chance the customer will go elsewhere with all their business with the reality of every choice we make every day having a lawyer hooked up with it somewhere. What we learn from this is industry guidelines are designed by lawyers, that failure to follow them could cost you everything, and that the customer is no longer (if they ever were) always right.



Tell 'em how it is. If they don't believe you're trying to work in their best interests, they're not customers--they're consumers, and deserve whatever follows from their poor choice. Just be sure, as this dealer learned, you aren't expediting or enabling that choice.