When a Tire Blowout Leads to a Crash: Proving Product Defects in Utah Courts

Few things on the road are more terrifying than a tire blowout. One second you’re cruising down I-15 with the radio on, and the next your car jerks sideways, rubber shreds fly, and you’re fighting to keep control. Most drivers describe it as a “heart stops” moment — and for good reason.

While some blowouts happen because of road debris or poor maintenance, others happen for a more troubling reason: a defective tire. When that’s the case, the law gives injured drivers and passengers a powerful tool — the right to hold manufacturers accountable through a product liability claim.

At The Legal Beagle, I’ve seen what happens when a defective tire causes a serious crash. These cases are complex, technical, and often hotly contested. But when you understand how Utah law views defective products, you can see why they matter not just for the victims, but for every driver on the road.

What Really Happens During a Tire Blowout

When a tire fails, it’s rarely instantaneous. Deep inside the rubber and steel belts, small flaws — invisible to the naked eye — can grow over time. Maybe the adhesive didn’t bond properly during manufacturing. Maybe the rubber compound was too brittle or the steel cords weren’t evenly distributed.

At highway speeds, those weaknesses can become catastrophic. The tire’s structure unravels, pressure drops instantly, and the tread separates from the casing. The vehicle veers violently, often across multiple lanes.

Drivers have only seconds to react. SUVs and trucks are especially prone to rolling over after a blowout because of their higher center of gravity. Even when the driver manages to avoid a rollover, the loss of control often leads to multi-vehicle collisions.

When those accidents happen, investigators look closely at what caused the failure — and that’s where product defect law comes into play.

The Three Kinds of Tire Defects

Utah law recognizes three main categories of product defects:

1. Design defects — flaws in how the tire was engineered

2. Manufacturing defects — errors during production or assembly

3. Failure to warn — when consumers weren’t adequately warned about a known danger

   
   

A tire with a design defect might use a belt configuration prone to separation under heat. A manufacturing defect might mean a single batch left the factory with weak bonding material. And a failure to warn could involve a company knowing that a certain model was unsafe at high speeds but never recalling it.

In each case, the principle is the same: the manufacturer is responsible when a defective product causes foreseeable harm. Utah law doesn’t require the injured person to prove the company was careless — only that the product was unreasonably dangerous and caused the injury.

A Case I’ll Never Forget

A few years ago, I represented a family from Davis County who were driving home from a weekend trip to Moab when their SUV’s rear tire suddenly blew out on Highway 6. The driver, a father of two, did everything right — he slowed down, gripped the wheel, and tried to steer to the shoulder. But the tread had completely separated from the casing, and the vehicle spun off the road and rolled twice before coming to rest upside down.

The accident left his wife with multiple fractures and their youngest child with a concussion. The tire was barely two years old and had been serviced regularly.

It was a difficult case because the manufacturer initially blamed the family. They claimed the tire had been underinflated and overused, even though the maintenance records said otherwise. Fortunately, I was able to work with an engineering expert who inspected the remnants of the tire under a microscope. What we found was clear evidence of a bonding failure between the steel belts — a classic manufacturing defect.

Once confronted with that analysis, the company settled quietly, and the family received enough to cover medical bills, rehabilitation, and the cost of replacing their totaled vehicle.

That case taught me how critical physical evidence is in tire failure claims. Without the remains of the tire, proving the defect would have been nearly impossible.

Why Tire Cases Are So Complex

Tire defect claims are among the most challenging personal injury cases to handle. They often require deep technical analysis, expert witnesses, and extensive documentation. Manufacturers rarely admit fault — instead, they blame improper inflation, overloading, or driver error.

The investigation usually begins with preserving the evidence. The damaged tire must be carefully collected and stored. Every detail matters — the age, model number, DOT code, and service history can reveal patterns that link the failure to other cases.

Once the tire is secured, an engineer or materials scientist examines it for specific indicators of failure. Belt separation, missing adhesive residue, or oxidation patterns can all point toward a defect.

If a defect is confirmed, the next step is tracing the distribution chain. Under Utah law, not just the manufacturer but also distributors and retailers can share liability if the product was sold in a dangerous condition.

Utah’s Product Liability Law Explained

Utah follows what’s known as strict liability in product defect cases. That means you don’t have to prove that the manufacturer was negligent — only that the product was defective, that it was used as intended, and that it caused injury.

This rule exists because consumers have no way of inspecting the hidden structure of a tire. We trust that products reaching the market are reasonably safe.

To win a claim, an injured person must show three things:

1. The tire was defective and unreasonably dangerous

2. The defect existed when it left the manufacturer’s control

3. The defect caused the injury or damages

   
   

Evidence such as expert reports, recall records, and photos of the damage can make or break a case.

Sometimes, these claims uncover larger safety issues. A single Utah lawsuit has, more than once, led to a national recall after other similar failures came to light.

The Role of Recalls and Federal Oversight

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) monitors tire safety and issues recalls when patterns of failure appear. But recalls don’t always happen quickly.

Some tire models remain on the road for years before being flagged. Others are quietly discontinued without public notice. That’s why it’s crucial to check the DOT identification number on every tire. It can reveal whether your model was part of a recall or investigated for safety issues.

Comparative Fault in Utah

Even when a tire is defective, Utah’s comparative fault system still applies. That means a manufacturer might argue that the driver’s actions contributed to the crash — for instance, if they were speeding, carrying too much weight, or ignoring a worn tread.

If the court finds the driver partially responsible, their compensation can be reduced in proportion to their share of fault. However, if the driver is less than 50 percent at fault, they can still recover damages.

This is where experienced legal representation matters. Defendants will often look for any possible reason to shift blame away from the defect, even when the evidence points squarely to the product.

What To Do After a Tire Blowout

If you experience a tire failure, safety comes first. Once you’re safe, though, preserving the evidence can make a world of difference if it turns out to be a defective product.

Here’s what you should do:

• Keep the damaged tire and any fragments — don’t let an insurance adjuster or tow yard discard them.

• Take detailed photos of the tire, wheel well, and roadway.

• Get a copy of the police report and any witness contact information.

• Contact a qualified attorney before filing an insurance claim.

  
  

In most cases, your attorney will send a letter of preservation to the tire manufacturer, putting them on notice not to destroy related records or materials. That step alone can protect your right to compensation later on.

Compensation Available in a Tire Defect Case

Victims of defective tire accidents can seek recovery for a wide range of damages under Utah law, including:

• Medical expenses and rehabilitation costs

• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity

• Pain and suffering

• Property damage

• In some cases, punitive damages if the company knew of the danger and ignored it

  
  

Each case depends on the extent of the injuries and the strength of the technical evidence. But when a defect is proven, compensation is often substantial because these accidents tend to be severe and life-altering.

A Matter of Accountability

Tire defect cases aren’t just about money — they’re about accountability. When companies cut corners, use substandard materials, or ignore reports of failures, they put lives at risk. Holding them responsible forces safer practices and better quality control.

I’ve seen firsthand how these cases can ripple outward. After one successful settlement, the manufacturer quietly updated its bonding process. That doesn’t make headlines, but it prevents future tragedies — and that’s the real impact of pursuing justice.

Final Thoughts

A tire blowout can happen in an instant, but the aftermath can last for years. Whether it’s a rollover, a highway collision, or a family shaken by loss, the question of “why” matters. If that “why” leads back to a defective product, the law is clear: the manufacturer, not the driver, should bear the cost.

If you’ve been in a crash and suspect a defective tire was involved, don’t let the evidence slip away. Talk to a Utah attorney who understands both the engineering and the law behind these cases.

At The Legal Beagle, we’ve helped Utah families rebuild after catastrophic tire failures. We know how to investigate, how to preserve evidence, and how to stand up to manufacturers who try to deflect blame.

Call us today for a free consultation at (801) 915-6152, or visit mylegalbeagle.com to schedule a review. The sooner we get involved, the sooner we can start uncovering the truth — and make sure what happened to you doesn’t happen to someone else.