Where is the video link?

"So, if a driver has a tire blow out, assuming the premise that the tires were relitively new and not worn past there usefull life, is that driver at fault for the accident?"

If the blowout results in a crash then yes the driver is at fault: 1) driver made the descision to purchase / drive on these tires 2) had the driver been driving slowly enough the blowout would not have resulted in a crash.

There is fault somewhere in all man made mishaps.

"Accidents can and do happen that are not attibutable to negligence or someone's "fault".

Name one excluding natural disasters.

jesse, I'm going to steal your thought of the day.

I think it's fitting to this thread.


THOUGHT OF THE DAY
Successful people ask better questions, and as a result,
they get better answers
Tony Robbins

Seems I remember that Ford and Firestone were both at fault for single car rollovers due to bad or low aired tires. Now you are saying that it's the drivers fault for only putting in 28 psi as per Ford recomendations, but Firestone said they needed 36 psi min.. or better, the captain of the SUV followed the instructions placed on the driver door jamb to inflate to 28 psi. then crashed due to rollover.

And, it could be said that unsuccessful people form opinions before they ask questions and get results.

Obviously, you are not familiar with the law of negligence or you wouldn't be asking for an explanation. Look it up: proximate cause, substantial factor, actual cause. I am not going to preach my craft here, as this is not the place.

One example: a dart out by an animal or child into the street who is killed by a vehicle who was not speeding and obeying all laws.

No high speed driving = no rollover.

No top heavey vehicle = no rollover.

Driver made a choice in the type of vehicle they were driving, in the speed at which they drove and in the tires they chose to drive with.

Fault is MOSTLY on the "faulty" tires yes but some fault still lies with the driver's choices.

Still a very poor analogy to hitting or anchoring on a stationary reef.

Driver made a choice to drive at that time in that location and at a speed that would not allow enough time to safely avoid a "darting" child.

In addition the driver should have known of the existance of children in this location and made adjustments to accomodate the possiblity of a "darting" child.

Ms. lawyer I'm not going to try to aurgue your craft either, I would surely lose that aurgument but you just used "the law" to justify or remove "fault" from a driver who ran over a child. I personally don't care what law has or has not been broken if an adult runs over a child then that adult IS at fault.

We have gone way beyond the boat issue and are now on a totally different plateau. IMHO