When a commercial truck tire explodes at highway speed, the resulting crash can be catastrophic. Victims and their families are left with serious injuries, mounting medical bills, and a critical question: Who pays for this?
The answer isn’t always simple. Tire blowout accidents often involve multiple responsible parties—the tire manufacturer, the trucking company, third-party maintenance providers, or even the truck driver. Understanding who’s liable determines who you can pursue for compensation and significantly impacts the strength of your case.
This article breaks down how liability works in tire blowout cases, what makes each party responsible, and how to identify who’s at fault in your specific situation.
If you were recently injured: Preserve any tire debris if it’s safe to do so, photograph the accident scene and all vehicles involved, and do not give recorded statements to insurance adjusters before consulting an attorney. Evidence disappears quickly—trucking companies are only required to keep maintenance records for 12-14 months, and physical evidence may be removed within days.
Why Liability Matters in Tire Blowout Cases
Determining liability isn’t just an academic exercise—it directly affects your ability to recover compensation. Here’s why:
Multiple defendants mean multiple insurance policies. A tire manufacturer may carry millions in product liability coverage. A trucking company has commercial vehicle insurance. A maintenance company carries its own liability policy. Identifying all responsible parties maximizes available compensation.
Different liability theories require different evidence. Proving a manufacturer sold a defective tire requires different evidence than proving a trucking company neglected maintenance. Knowing who to target helps you gather the right evidence quickly.
Some parties are easier to hold liable than others. In states like Nevada that follow strict liability for defective products, you don’t need to prove a manufacturer was negligent—only that their product was defective and caused harm. This can be significantly easier than proving a trucking company ignored federal maintenance regulations.
The Four Potentially Liable Parties
1. The Tire Manufacturer
Tire manufacturers can be held liable when a tire fails due to a defect rather than poor maintenance or misuse. Three types of defects support liability claims:
Design Defects: The tire’s design itself creates an unreasonable safety risk. For example, a tire designed with inadequate heat dissipation that makes blowouts foreseeable under normal highway use.
Manufacturing Defects: Errors during production create weaknesses in individual tires. This includes using substandard rubber compounds, improper curing that fails to bond tire components correctly, or quality control failures that allow defective tires to reach the market.
Failure to Warn: The manufacturer didn’t provide adequate warnings or instructions about proper tire use, speed ratings, load limits, or known risks. According to Nevada law, warnings must adequately communicate dangers that may flow from product use—otherwise, the product is considered defective.
Evidence that points to manufacturer liability:
- Tire tread separation along the steel belt line
- Multiple failures of the same tire model
- NHTSA recall notices for the specific tire
- Tire age analysis showing failure occurred well within expected lifespan
- Expert metallurgical analysis revealing manufacturing defects
Common manufacturer defenses:
- “The tire failed because of improper maintenance”
- “The tire was overloaded beyond its rated capacity”
- “Road hazards caused the damage”
2. The Trucking Company
Trucking companies bear legal responsibility for maintaining their fleet in safe condition. Federal law under 49 CFR Part 396 imposes strict maintenance requirements on commercial motor carriers.
What trucking companies must do:
Federal regulations require trucking companies to:
- Conduct systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of all vehicles
- Perform annual inspections (every 12 months minimum) covering all safety-critical components including tires
- Maintain detailed maintenance records for 12 months while vehicles are in service, plus 6 months after they leave service
- Keep annual inspection reports for 14 months
- Ensure drivers conduct pre-trip inspections that include visual tire checks
- Maintain driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) for 3 months
Tire-specific requirements under 49 CFR §393.75:
- Steer tires must have at least 4/32 inch tread depth
- All other tires must have at least 2/32 inch tread depth
- No tires with exposed body ply or belt material
- No tires with tread or sidewall separation
- Proper tire inflation based on load weight
Evidence that points to trucking company liability:
- Maintenance records showing missed inspections or deferred tire replacement
- Driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) noting tire problems that weren’t addressed
- Tires worn below legal tread depth limits
- Company policies prioritizing delivery schedules over safety
- Pattern of violations discovered during FMCSA audits
When drivers are employees vs. independent contractors:
Trucking companies often claim “the driver is an independent contractor” to avoid liability. However, courts look beyond labels to examine actual control. If the company dictated routes, schedules, equipment standards, or closely supervised operations, they may be liable regardless of classification. Additionally, under respondeat superior doctrine, employers are liable for employee negligence committed during work duties.
Common trucking company defenses:
- “Our maintenance records are complete and show proper care”
- “The driver was an independent contractor, not our employee”
- “The tire failed due to a manufacturing defect beyond our control”
3. The Maintenance Crew or Third-Party Service Provider
Many trucking companies outsource tire maintenance to specialized service providers. When tire failures result from improper installation, inadequate inspections, or negligent repairs, these maintenance companies can be held liable.
What makes maintenance providers liable:
Improper installation: Tires mounted incorrectly, wheels improperly torqued, or components installed on incompatible rims.
Failed inspections: Missing obvious defects like cracks, bulges, or insufficient tread depth during routine service.
Negligent repairs: Using incorrect patch materials, failing to properly balance tires, or repairing tires that should have been replaced.
Substandard retreading: For retreaded tires, poor quality control during the retreading process can create defects. Federal regulations under 49 CFR §393.75 prohibit retreaded tires on steer axles of buses and restrict their use on truck steer axles based on load capacity.
Evidence that points to maintenance provider liability:
- Service records showing recent tire work shortly before the blowout
- Improper tire mounting or wheel balance evident from physical evidence
- Testimony from other mechanics about substandard work
- Pattern of problems traced to specific maintenance facility
Common maintenance provider defenses:
- “We followed industry standards”
- “The tire had pre-existing damage we couldn’t have detected”
- “The trucking company failed to bring the vehicle in as scheduled”
4. The Truck Driver
While less common than the other three, truck drivers can be individually liable when their actions directly contribute to tire failures.
What makes drivers liable:
Ignoring obvious tire defects: Federal regulations under 49 CFR Parts 396.11 and 396.13 require drivers to conduct pre-trip inspections and report defects. If a driver notices low tire pressure, visible damage, or insufficient tread but drives anyway to meet a deadline, they can be held liable.
Reckless driving: Excessive speed, hitting road hazards, or driving on tires known to be compromised.
Overloading: Drivers who knowingly exceed weight limits place excess stress on tires.
Multiple Parties Can Share Liability
In many tire blowout cases, several parties contribute to the accident. Consider this scenario:
- A tire manufacturer used substandard rubber compounds (design defect)
- The trucking company delayed replacing tires beyond their service life (maintenance failure)
- The driver ignored low pressure warnings (driver negligence)
In states like Nevada, this benefits injury victims. Under Nevada law (NRS 695E.090), you can pursue compensation from all responsible parties. Nevada’s product liability laws don’t require proving negligence against manufacturers—only that the product was defective and caused harm.
This is particularly important because different defendants have different insurance coverage limits. Identifying all liable parties maximizes your potential recovery.
Nevada’s Strict Liability Advantage
Nevada follows strict product liability doctrine for defective products, including tires. This legal principle significantly benefits injury victims.
What strict liability means:
Traditional negligence cases require proving four elements:
- The defendant owed you a duty of care
- They breached that duty
- The breach caused your injuries
- You suffered actual damages
Under strict liability, you only need to prove:
- The product (tire) was defective
- The defect existed when the product left the manufacturer
- The defect caused your injuries
You don’t need to prove the manufacturer knew about the defect or acted carelessly. This removes a significant burden and often makes product liability cases stronger than negligence claims.
Additionally, under NRS 42.005, Nevada caps punitive damages in most cases at three times compensatory damages or $300,000. However, these caps don’t apply to product liability actions. When manufacturers act with conscious disregard for safety, unlimited punitive damages may be available.
How to Identify Who’s at Fault in Your Case
While a thorough investigation requires legal expertise, certain patterns can indicate likely liable parties:
Signs pointing to manufacturer defect:
- The tire was relatively new (under 2 years old)
- Tread separated cleanly from the tire body
- Other drivers have reported similar failures with the same tire model
- The tire shows no signs of improper maintenance or external damage
Signs pointing to maintenance failure:
- The tire was 5+ years old
- Tread depth was visibly low or below legal limits
- Maintenance records show gaps in inspections
- Multiple tires on the truck were in poor condition
- The trucking company has a history of FMCSA violations
Signs pointing to installation error:
- The tire was recently installed or serviced
- Wheel mounting shows signs of improper torquing
- Tire was mounted on an incompatible rim
- Other recently serviced components also failed
Signs pointing to multiple parties:
- An aging tire (maintenance issue) had a manufacturing defect that wasn’t caught during inspection
- Proper maintenance would have identified the defect before failure
- The tire was defective AND the trucking company violated federal regulations
Evidence Critical to Proving Liability
Regardless of who’s at fault, certain evidence is essential:
Physical evidence:
- The failed tire itself (all pieces if possible)
- Maintenance records from the trucking company
- The truck’s electronic logging device (ELD) data
- Photos of the accident scene and tire debris
Documentary evidence:
- FMCSA inspection reports for the trucking company
- NHTSA records of tire recalls or complaints
- Service invoices from maintenance providers
- Driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs)
Expert analysis:
- Tire forensic examination to determine failure mode
- Accident reconstruction to establish causation
- Review of federal regulation compliance
Time is critical. Trucking companies must maintain records, but only for limited periods—typically 12 months for maintenance records and 14 months for annual inspections. Physical evidence like tire debris may be swept away by road crews within days. Witness memories fade quickly.
What to Look for in an Attorney
Tire blowout cases involve complex federal regulations, multiple potential defendants, and technical evidence about tire failure mechanisms. Not every personal injury attorney has the experience needed to handle these cases effectively.
Your attorney should:
- Understand FMCSA regulations governing commercial vehicles
- Have access to tire forensic experts who can determine failure causes
- Know how to obtain and interpret trucking company maintenance records
- Be familiar with product liability law in your state
- Have experience dealing with large trucking companies and their insurers
- Act quickly to preserve evidence before it disappears
Questions to ask:
- How many truck accident cases have you handled?
- Do you have tire forensic experts you work with?
- How will you investigate who’s liable in my case?
- What’s your approach when multiple parties share fault?
- Do you handle cases on contingency (no upfront costs)?
Take Action to Protect Your Rights
If you’ve been injured in a truck tire blowout accident, time is not on your side. Nevada law provides only two years to file a personal injury lawsuit under NRS Chapter 11. More importantly, critical evidence disappears quickly.
An experienced truck accident attorney can:
- Conduct an immediate investigation while evidence is available
- Identify all potentially liable parties
- Obtain maintenance records and electronic data from the trucking company
- Consult with tire forensic experts to determine failure cause
- Deal with insurance companies on your behalf
- Pursue maximum compensation from all responsible parties
Jack Bernstein has 40+ years of experience as a personal injury attorney. Now serving Nevada injury victims, Jack understands federal trucking regulations, Nevada product liability law, and the tactics insurance companies use to avoid paying claims. Jack is personally involved in every case, ensuring you get individual attention and maximum results.
For a free consultation about your truck tire blowout case, call (702) 633-3333. Jack’s got your back.
