California Tire Measure is a Lawsuit Magnet

WASHINGTON, May 28 The Rubber Manufacturers Association today criticized a California Assembly bill as "inconsistent," "contradictory" and "fear-mongering" that would only serve to increase lawsuit opportunities for the bill's primary supporters - trial lawyers.

AB 496 would selectively require consumer notification about a tire's chronological age on some sellers of replacement tires, primarily tire dealers. Supporters of the measure claim that tires reaching a certain age are a potential safety hazard and say the notification is necessary to prevent older tires from being placed into service.

However, supporters' alleged concern with motorist safety is contradicted by provisions in the bill that would exempt millions of tires from the bill's age notification.

"Proponents of this bill use fear-mongering to allege that tires reaching a certain chronological age are dangerous," said Dan Zielinski, RMA senior vice president, public affairs. "But the bill is inconsistent in its application. Any consumer who buys tires or a vehicle in a private transaction, or who buys a new or used vehicle from a dealer or who buys replacement tires from an auto dealer would not receive a notification under this proposal. These exemptions make the measure contradictory on its face and are implicit acknowledgement that chronological tire age alone is not a hazard."

RMA also says that the measure's notification provisions are confusing and likely to result in second-guessing by trial lawyers.

"Providing a simple, understandable notification to consumers about a tire's date of manufacture is reasonable," Zielinski said. "But the bill provides several options that would likely lead to trial lawyers' accusations that a dealer didn't provide the most appropriate notification. This would force nearly all notifications to be given prior to the point of sale which will result in needless service delays."

In an earlier letter of opposition to AB 496 author, Assembly Member Mike Davis, RMA noted that a prior-to-sale notification would be impractical and burdensome.

Although several auto and tire manufacturers have issued recommendations for tire replacement after a number of years, none are derived from technical data that suggests a tire would not perform after such time.

Allegations that there is a correlation between tire performance and chronological tire age are unfounded and unsupported by data. No auto industry, tire industry or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data has determined that a tire cannot perform when it reaches a particular chronological age.

Information provided by RMA to NHTSA shows that chronological tire age is not a factor in tire performance. An RMA study of 14,000 scrap tires did not reveal any indication that tires are removed from service once they reach a certain chronological age. A second comprehensive study of all claims made by consumers to tire manufacturers over a six-year period showed that the rate of claims as a function of the chronological age of tires actually decreases after six years.

"AB 496 would only benefit trial lawyers by creating a new roadmap to sue California tire dealers," Zielinski said. "The measure makes inaccurate statements about tire performance and imposes new burdens on tire retailers in a particularly unfortunate economic climate."