Dark clouds over Michelin gathered at the very end of the year after a New Mexico jury handed down a heavy financial and reputational guillotine on the French giant. The tire manufacturer has been ordered to pay a colossal $220 million in damages for a fatal crash that claimed the lives of an American family. The court's decision sends a clear message to the entire industry: safety is not compromised, even when it comes to details invisible to the naked eye.
It all began on a hot July day in 2021 on a Texas highway. Laura Zamaripa was driving her family's Ford Excursion when the front left Michelin LTX M/S2 tire literally fell apart while driving. The heavy SUV became uncontrollable, crossed into the oncoming lane and crashed head-on into a Chevrolet pickup truck. The impact was merciless - Laura, her mother and her 14-year-old sister died on the spot. A tragedy that later turned into a legal battle for billions.
In the courtroom, the lawyers of the blackened family unraveled the “inner world” of the fatal tire. The main indictment was directed at the technological process: an incorrectly applied rubber bonding layer that should hold the steel cord firmly in place. According to the plaintiffs, it was this defect that led to the sudden peeling of the tread - a phenomenon that turns the car into an uncontrollable weapon. Suspicions of poor-quality vulcanization and deviations from factory standards were added to the list of sins.
The “Achilles heel” in Michelin's defense, however, turned out to be the issue of aging. It turned out that the tire was manufactured in 2014, and although it appeared to be in good condition, time had done its destructive work. The court accepted the argument that neither the manufacturer nor the retailer adequately warned consumers about the hidden dangers of outdated rubber, regardless of the depth of the groove.
The jury was ruthless in its conclusion: Michelin was 100% responsible for the accident. The $220 million award was distributed among the surviving relatives in an attempt to compensate for the immeasurable moral pain. However, Michelin is not going to give up without a fight. The company expressed its condolences, but categorically rejected the accusations of defect, insisting that a seven-year-old tire with 70,000 miles on it had simply reached its natural limit of use.
This legal precedent is on its way to reordering the rules in the industry. If the ruling is upheld after an expected appeal, manufacturers will be forced to put much clearer "use by" dates on their products. For Michelin, the fight continues in the appeals courts, but the stain on the image of "the safest tires" is already a fact.