Tort Law


Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses Tires Cases

Brien Roche

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Tires. 



See Va. Code §§ 46.2-1041 through 46.2-1045.


1999 Holmes v. Doe, 257 Va. 573, 515 S.E.2d 117.

In this auto accident case, trial court properly permitted introduction of expert testimony concerning relationship between tire tread depth and hydroplaning by motor vehicle. Expert expressed opinion that tire tread depth of 232 inches was unsafe although Va. Code § 46.2-1043 sets minimum statutory tread depth as being 232 inches. Statute does not address specific safety concerns for operating vehicle with minimum depth treads under circumstances of this case. As such, this testimony was permissible. Expert further only testified about hypothetical tire, road, and weather conditions in order to explain principles of hydroplaning. Expert testimony was appropriate to aid jury in putting other factual evidence into appropriate context from which jury could draw its own conclusions.

1984 Harper v. B & W Bandag Center, 226 Va. 469, 311 S.E.2d 104.

Tire blowout of recapped tire resulted in alleged injuries to plaintiff. Central issue was whether tire in question blew out because of improper recapping or as result of impact failure. Verdict for defendant affirmed.

1967 Tyree v. Lariew, 208 Va. 382, 158 S.E.2d 140.

Auto accident involving tire blowout.

1965 Smith v. Mooers, 206 Va. 307, 142 S.E.2d 473.

Tire blowout involving used car. Plaintiff was prospective purchaser who was road testing vehicle. Verdict for defendant.

1964 Doss v. Martin, 205 Va. 306, 136 S.E.2d 854.

Plaintiff struck while changing tire. Jury issue as to negligence and contributory negligence.

1961 Jones v. Bush, 202 Va. 752, 120 S.E.2d 382.

Plaintiff operator of service station was injured while inflating defendant’s tire. Plaintiff argued that defendant knew or should have known of dangerous condition of tire. Owner of auto owes to repairman duty to disclose to him any known dangerous defect, but owner does not owe duty to employ skill of expert in examining auto before delivery to mechanic. There was no breach of such duty here.

1960 Pickett v. Cooper, 202 Va. 60, 116 S.E.2d 48.

Defendant claimed that tire blowout resulted in defendant’s vehicle pulling into plaintiff’s lane. Defendant was entitled to sudden emergency instruction.

1953 Atlantic Rural Exposition, Inc. v. Fagan, 195 Va. 13, 77 S.E.2d 368.

Plaintiff spectator at stock car race, injured when wheel came off, bounded over 3.5 foot woven wire fence and into bleachers where plaintiff was seated. Spindle on car broke due to metal fatigue; car however, had been properly inspected and was reasonably believed to be safe. Trial court properly struck evidence as to driver and owners of automobiles.

1952 Carr v. Patram, 193 Va. 604, 70 S.E.2d 308.

Tire blowout caused accident which did not constitute gross negligence.

1944 Virginia State Fair Ass’n v. Burton, 182 Va. 365, 28 S.E.2d 716.

It is matter of common knowledge that even at ordinary speed, deflated tire is likely to cause driver of car to lose control.

For more information on tires see the pages on Wikipedia

Contact Us For A Free Consultation


Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation