But who would be at fault if they just hit something on the road and had a blow out?

 

I don't believe we are talking about the same thing...

I was referring to the Explorer/Firestone situation, as in Ford caused the accidents due to negligence, that was due to under-inflation causing the tires to prematurely seperate and cause a blow-out...

This seems to be getting a little pointless, isn't it?????

I think Ford F***ED up with the Explorer tire fiasco, you think the driver is always responsible for themself, even when it is documented that the tire seperation and consequential blow-outs were due to Fords bad decision to under-inflate the tires...

Fine.

 

Ford didn't cause the accidents. We can make a case that Ford made a blow out more likely by recommending a tire pressure with little margin for under inflation. However, the exact same scenario could have been cause by debris on the road. So it's not like Ford put the drivers in a situation that couldn't have happened otherwise. A blowout is simply a reality of driving regardless of whether it was caused by a tire failure due to under inflation or some chunk of scrap on the highway. I believe that this is a situation that drivers should be able to recover from.
The question is how did the driver handle the situation after the blowout occurred. To say that the driver isn't culpable because it was a Ford decision vs bad luck that caused the tire to fail means that we have to find blame anytime a tire fails. It means we neglect the most critical part of the accident scenario, the driver. That