Ok, I did a search and couldnt find anything so my hopes is this is a new topic on the dreaded summer tire issue.

Now given we in the U.S. live in a very litigious society would driving "summer tires" in winter conditions leave one open to a charge of neglegence or aggravated charges related to an accident? Now of course in a civil suit you can say anything and use that as a charge for greater damages.

But in a actual criminal case would that be used? I mean they are marked "summer/performance tires" They are known to be horrible in the winter by most? What got me thinking was some of the accident threads.

I mean I guess you could use it as grounds against the driver for not changing the tires (tough subjective argument on when winter/all-season tires should be switched) AND you could go after Mazda for not having all-season tires as an option.

Now I am not saying I believe in any of this (afterall accidents happen, and it seems a bit trivial, and silly) but I could see it happening.

I wonder if there are any precedents. Maybe just a silly post-lunch food-coma induced rambling.

 

Except tires don't cause accidents...drivers do. Nobody is 'required' to drive their car in icey or slippery conditions. Driving isn't a right.

 

I have to agree, that an argumet could at least be made.

 

In your reasoning.. every sports car manufacturer selling summer tires would be held liable. It's funny 3 of my friends have the same tires stock on different cars- s2k, g35c, 350z.

People should know what they are purchasing. I had no clue, but it doesn't apply to me. Ah, they joys of owning a sports car.

 

Of course the argument could be made, but it's an unreasonable argument. The only neglegence would be on the part of the driver for having driven.

Course, I bet if the lawsuit happened in a place full of liberals, it COULD work. To me, it simply doesn't pass the common-sense test.

 

I think if you asked 100 people what kind of tires they had on their cars, less than half could tell you the manufacturer, then even fewer could tell you what type they were.

Negligence can only be proved if the person is aware of the danger that they cause. I wouldn't think a "normal" person would be responsible for knowing all the limitations of their existing tires.

On the other hand, if road reports recommend using snow tires or chains, you would probably be responsible for knowing if your tires comply with the recommendation.

 

It seems to me, it's in the manual to some effect. Also, a diligent attorney would find where you posted on this site asking a question about winter driving in the rx-8 and would find that you have been soundly warned. Since when does a lawsuit have to pass common sense? I bet we could name 10 without trouble that we all know of.

 

I don't buy that for a second; ignorance is no excuse. If it was, people could avoid all kinds of charges by just saying, "I didn't know [fill in whatever...] would hurt me (or you)"

1.3L

 

Are you thinking that Mazda could be liable, or you thinking that you could be? I'd say individually, you could get sued if you cause an accident using equpment that was unsuitable for conditions. No different than if you skid on bald tires and smash into someone.

I think you'd find it much harder to sue Mazda as it is clearly stated in the manual that the car requires appropriate winter-condition tires.

That and they are a big company with big legal resources and we are just peon consumers.

 

I took it as the end user being negligent. Knowing that you shouldn't be tooling around on snow and ice covered streets with summer proformance tires.

 

Ok, first of all I am just sounding off a thought, I think a lawsuit or criminal charges would be BS but think that the argument is somethign to be thought of (as you are all RX-8 drivers, as I hope to be soon).

Of course they could make the argument and 9/10 reasonable people would agree its ludicrous but once that 1 person is found guilty or Mazda found liable it creates a precedence argument that can be used by others.

And as you would see in many civil lawsuits where an individual is suing a large corporation (ie. Mazda) the jury (if one exists) a great majority of the time side with the small guy vs the "evil non-personified company" (not my belief but its a factor that juries attribute blame to large companies they feel can afford it.

An example of sorts would be you go and buy a RX-8, you drive it off the lot in the middle of a snowy wet day. The dealer didnt offer you tires, mazda didnt say anyone buying a car in a winter month (subjective & regional) gets different tires gets into an accident (due to bad traction- says the lawyer, not the driver) they can sue the dealer and Mazda, they may not even win but Mazda would likely settle out of court to keep the story down, and to save legal fees.

It happens all the time in other business, a sad fact of our litigious society.

I am just throwing out the argument since it came to mind today looking at one of the accident pics that had a icy looking road.

Obviously there are a lot of factors that contribute to all the arguments.

 

If I can get rich spilling hot coffee in my lap, or biting into a hot apple pie then who knows...

 

I specifically mentioned snow tires to the dealer trying to use it as a negotiating point. He told me the stock "All Seasons" were fine for winter driving. However, it would be my word against his and he was just trying to do his job by getting as much money out of me as possible, not trying to kill a bus load of nuns.

 

Ford and Firestone spent millions and lost in court over the "exploding" tires that caused the Explorers to then flip over. Yet, wherever evidence was properly gathered, it was found the actual cause of the accidents were tires that were more than 20% underinflated and speeds in excess of 80 mph.

Even with all the publicity of the Ford/Firestone case, how many SUV drivers KNOW that they are driving on tires that are probably only H rated? How many of those drivers know that their vehicle has a high center of gravity and a blowout or evasive maneuver at speed can have devastating results?

The courts presume that drivers KNOW NOTHING. Like it or not, you don't have to have a degree in engineering or a course in advanced vehicle dynamics to drive.

Unless you add DUI to the mix, the courts are not likely to assign blame to the driver.

 

I think you need to re-read the ford-firestone case...

In any event, these tires are performing their designed function. Which would absolve mazda. The defense could argue over the common-knowledge that sports cars are not meant for snowy conditions very easily.

Bottom line: consumers fault.

 

this is one of the reasons i sold the car this saturday. other people needed to move my car and have flooded it many times. i forbid anyone to drive it in the snow. if they had to, would i be liable knowing their life was in danger???. too many questions, to many problems, so i sold it. i lost $7000 over 2 years, but got a good deal on the other car. i liked the car and looked damn good in it. i have kids and my lifestyle is go go go, the rx8 just wasn't for me. please do not start the personal insults that are common on this board. i will not be returning to read them. signing off joe

 

My car works fine in the winter and snow - never has flooded, goes reasonably well through the slop, etc. Now that said, I don't really want to go zipping about in it in the snow.

Who said their dealer said "stock all season" tires. That's BS. Only way those OEM Bridgestone or Dunlop tires are "all season" is if you live in San Diego or South Florida.

I swapped my factory rubber for Pirelli PZeroNero M+S all seasons. Those work quite well.

Stew

 

H rated tires are good for 130mph. what do you mean only H rated?