Who is liable when a defective tire’s tread separates and causes a Georgia wreck?


A tread separation, where the tire’s outer layer peels away from the body at speed, can trigger a sudden loss of control. When a defect in the tire is to blame, Georgia law allows a claim against those in the chain that put the tire into use, though more than one party may share responsibility depending on the cause.

Potential targets of a tire-defect claim

The strict-liability rule in O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 lets a claim run against a defective product’s maker, which here points at a tire manufacturer whose design or production flaw drove the separation. Beyond the maker, others involved with the tire may be responsible depending on the facts:

  • The manufacturer, if the tire was defectively designed or built.
  • A seller, though under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11.1 a non-manufacturer seller is not strictly liable as a manufacturer; a seller’s exposure usually runs through negligence or breach of warranty, unless the seller actually built or assembled the tire.
  • A repair or service shop whose improper mounting, repair, or maintenance caused or contributed to the failure.

Identifying the responsible party usually depends on why the tread separated, which is an engineering question more than a legal one.

Defect versus other causes

Tread separations do not always mean a defect. A tire can fail because of road damage, underinflation, overloading, age, or a botched repair. The central issue is whether the separation resulted from a flaw present when the tire left the manufacturer or seller, or from something that happened later in the tire’s life. Preserving the failed tire is often critical, because inspection of the actual tire is typically how experts determine whether the cause was a manufacturing defect, a design problem, or external factors.

Dividing responsibility

When several factors contributed, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 calls for the fault to be apportioned. A jury spreads the percentages across a manufacturer, a service provider, and anyone else involved, and the injured driver’s own conduct, such as ignoring obvious tire wear, goes into the same ledger. That driver’s share comes off the recovery, and a share of 50 percent or more leaves nothing to collect. This lets responsibility for a defect and responsibility for poor maintenance be separated.

The bottom line

Liability for a tread-separation wreck in Georgia can fall on a tire manufacturer or, in some cases, a seller or service shop, depending on what actually caused the failure. Because separations can stem from a defect or from age, damage, or improper service, preserving the tire and determining the cause is central, and Georgia’s apportionment rules allow fault to be divided among the parties responsible.


This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and Georgia law may change. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney.

Leave a Reply