HOW THE PHILADELPHIA CAR ACCIDENT LAWYERS AT POMERANTZ PERLBERGER & LEWIS DID IT – PART II OF CSI
In Part I of this case study, we indicated that the report from the State Police, which had investigated the Pennsylvania car accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, left little hope in finding another source of funds after finding that the defendant driver was so clearly at fault. This did not deter our Philadelphia wrongful death attorneys, because in Pennsylvania if there were other causes that were the result of some negligent act then the doctrine of "joint and several liability" could be invoked. So a research and discovery initiative by the firm was begun to see where else and what else caused the wrongful death of our client's son. What we found – as you will see below – was that the car dealership had negligently repaired the vehicle.
Too Much Air Improper Repair
On July 15, 2006, Plaintiff’s Decedent, was the front-seat passenger of the vehicle that went out of control, and Decedent, who was seat-belted, was ejected from the front seat passenger side of the vehicle, causing severe traumatic injuries resulting in his death.
The crash vehicle, a 2000 Nissan Maxima, was regularly serviced and maintained at the Defendant’s dealership. In March of 2006, during the inspection and maintenance servicing, new tires were purchased and placed on the vehicle. The tires were mounted, balanced and inflated by an employee and we theorized that they tires had been grossly over-inflated, resulting in a reduction of traction and maneuverability of the car during emergency situations. We believed that the driver, who was traveling at a high rate of speed on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on July 15, 2006, was unable to bring his car fully under control during an emergency situation as a result of both his excessive speed and the uneven pressurization and over-inflation of the two front tires.
A full chain of custody was established for the entire period from March 2006 thru July 2006 by our car accident attorneys by getting affidavits and depositions from every entity that had control over the vehicle from the day of the crash up until trial. The firm actually purchased the vehicle and a garage for storage in order to accomplish this aspect of the proof process, without which the theory would not have been provable. What we found was that, although the tires had been on the car for some 5 months, no tire pressure check had been done and no air had been added to the tires by those in custody. The over-inflation of the two front tires (left tire 40 PSI and right tire 58 PSI) resulted in a reduction of surface contact with the roadway thus reducing the tire surface in contact with the roadway, resulting in less tire surface in contact with the road causing diminished stability and traction under sudden braking. The uneven pressure between the two front tires produced severe impairment to the handling of the vehicle.
Originally the expert, who was initially hired by us to do an accident reconstruction, never considered the loss of tire-to-road surface friction as a cause of the driver losing control. To the Philadelphia injury attorneys at PP&L it was clear that this was still a possibility in the reconstruction of the accident.
We decided to do our own investigation about the effects of over-inflated tires. In our technical search in Engineering Journals and Consumer Product Safety material we found information which supported our suspicions.
The above examination along with the review of the submitted material and the reported incident circumstances showed that the front fires of the Nissan Maxima were over-inflated. The pressure of the front tires was found to be uneven and grossly above the pressures recommended by the car manufacturer for normal driving. Our car accident reconstruction expert then found:
Tires have four main functions:
1. Supporting the weight of the vehicle and its contents.
2. Absorbing the shock and vibration from the road.
3. Transmitting engine power and brake forces through traction.
4. Changing and maintaining direction of the travel.
“In summary, the tires transmit the driver’s intentions and the vehicle’s power, and despite the size of the car the only part of the vehicle in contact with the road is the tires. Each tire has a contact area with the road of approximately the size of a normal post card. This contact area is reduced when the tire is over-inflated because the tire bulges in the center of the tread, and the outside of the tire’s tread is only partially in contact with the road. Less tire surface in contact with the road equates to less stability, less traction, and a high potential for skidding under sudden braking.
“Uneven pressure between the two front tires produces complications to the handling of the vehicle. With one tire inflated to a higher pressure than the other, there is uneven rolling resistance and braking resistance between the two tires, due to the difference in the amount of contact area between the two tires and the road. With both the front tires on the Maxima over-inflated and having a large pressure difference, the Maxima would lose braking efficiency and would pull to the side with the lower air pressure during emergency braking. By losing efficiency it is meant that the stopping distance for any given speed of the vehicle would be increased.”
As reported in Part I, our Philadelphia injury lawyers recovered more than $500,000, despite the fact that the driver’s car insurance limits were only $50,000. The excess was obtained from the dealership once we were able to demonstrate that negligent repair had occurred.
