Live
- You are freeloader, not students: JNUSU slams VC
- 9 Padma awardees: Burns survivor, disabled achiever, wheel-chair bound educationist awarded
- 36 nominations received on 5th day in YSR district
- TS Inter results 2024 announced, check the results comparison to that of 2023
- Centre seeks info from Singapore on spices ban
- Student murder case: Bike riders create a storm from Bengaluru to Hubballi
- New machine learning models to boost diagnosis of women’s heart disease
- Life comes full circle for pastry chef Nikitha Umesh with ‘Master Chef India Telugu’
- Exploring contrasts in classical dance
- Empowering the workplace through skill enhancement
Indian American after car crash sues US tyre company
Highlights
Indian American After Car Crash Sues US Tyre Company. An Indian American is suing Ohio-based Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, holding it responsible for a 2012 crash that left him paralysed, according to a media report.
.jpg)
Washington: An Indian American is suing Ohio-based Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, holding it responsible for a 2012 crash that left him paralysed, according to a media report.
Harishkumar Patel, 58, suffered a spine injury that left him paralysed after his car rolled over on the US-31 freeway. An independent tyre consultant on Thursday told Berrien County Trial Court that the Goodyear tyre that failed on Patel's vehicle had three manufacturer defects and one design defect, The Herald Palladium reported on Friday.
Tyre consultant William Woehrle told Judge Sterling Schrock that although he never personally designed a tyre, he has held positions in which he provided tyre failure information to engineers and designers.
Patel is suing Goodyear for the second time. A trial in 2014 ended in a hung jury, the daily added.
A lawyer representing the Indian-American said if the jury decides against Goodyear, a monetary award for Patel would also be considered by the panel. He said the cost of care for Patel for the rest of his life is expected to exceed $6 million.
The tyre company's defence is based on a belief that the failure was a result of the vehicle hitting an object at some time before the day of the crash, while Patel's lawyers argued that the tyre was defective and never should have been placed on a vehicle.
Next Story
ADVERTISEMENT
