Delair v. McAdoo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936 · Torts

188 A. 181 (1936)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceAutomobile defectsDuty of inspectionautomobiletire blowoutreasonable inspectionconstructive notice

Facts

Defendant attempted to pass plaintiff while both cars were traveling in the same direction. As defendant drew alongside plaintiff, defendant's left rear tire blew out, causing his car to swerve into plaintiff's car. Plaintiff claimed defendant was negligent for operating the car with defective tires. Plaintiff's witnesses testified that the blown tire was worn through to and into the fabric, and a repairman said the breaker strip was visible, though defendant disputed that evidence.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find defendant negligent for operating an automobile with a tire so worn that the fabric was exposed, and whether expert testimony was necessary to establish that such a condition was dangerous.

Rule

An owner or operator of a motor vehicle must exercise reasonable care to inspect and maintain it so that it does not create an unreasonable risk to others, and is chargeable with notice of defects that a reasonable inspection would disclose. A tire worn through to the fabric is not in condition for safe driving, and operating a car with such a tire may constitute negligence; expert testimony is unnecessary where ordinary experience enables jurors to judge the danger.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Jordan Pike drove his sedan to work every day for months without checking the tires. One rear tire had worn so thin that the fabric was plainly visible across much of the tread, and the tire burst while Jordan was changing lanes, sending his car into Nina Solis's vehicle.

In Nina's negligence suit, which is the strongest argument for denying Jordan's motion for judgment as a matter of law?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an owner or operator has a duty of reasonable inspection and is chargeable with notice of defects such inspection would reveal. A tire worn through to the fabric is unsafe for driving, and evidence of that condition is sufficient to let a jury find negligence. Actual subjective knowledge is unnecessary, expert testimony is not required on this point, and a blowout alone does not always prove negligence.