Although Paul Kiesel is a personal injury lawyer, he didn’t realize that a car tire older than six to 10 years was not safe to use until he became the lead plaintiff attorney in Garcia, et al. v. Chuy’s Tire Service.
“It’s because rubber degrades and rubber oxidizes,” he said. “The oxygen tears down the rubber and as a result of that, it doesn't work.”
Kiesel represented the San Diego family members of three people who died in a 2001 Ford Expedition on Dec. 19, 2014.
“On the 15 Freeway in San Diego County, the right rear tire lost the tread and once you lose your tread and you're traveling at 70 miles an hour, a driver cannot control the vehicle from ultimately doing what it did here,” Kiesel told the Southern California Record. “It flipped over multiple times.”
The car did not catch fire but the roof of the 2001 Ford Expedition collapsed on the driver and the passengers behind the driver.
“Essentially, their skulls were crushed,” Kiesel said. “The folks on the passenger side did not die. Only the folks on the driver's side were killed. Obviously, the detread led to the rollover, but the deaths were caused by the roof crush.”
Kiesel argued that Chuy’s Tire Service was at fault because it failed to swap one of the 2001 Ford Expedition's oldest tires, which detreaded due to age.
"The truck was in the fast lane and 500 feet behind the truck was a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy on duty in a marked patrol vehicle driving back to his assigned area," he said. "This officer actually saw the tire tread come off. It almost hit him in his car. He witnessed the vehicle go off the road but they had already died 10 seconds after this thing happened. The three people had passed away."
Kiesel had asked for $14 million to settle the case, according to media reports, but while the jury was deliberating, the defendant offered $3 million, which was $2 million more than the insurance policy limit.
“The only thing we had an absolute right to was $1 million,” he said. “So, the insurance company is willing to go beyond what they were contractually required to pay to get it resolved."
The plaintiffs accepted.
“I could not disagree with my client’s decision that it was better to resolve it with the offer than it would be to wait and get a verdict and then go through all the appellate processes that might happen,” Kiesel added.