Bridgestone Tire Lawsuit Alleges Tread Separation Caused Fatal Crash

Lawsuit claims Bridgestone used inadequate tread, wedge and inner liner materials that were susceptible to thermal and mechanical degradation.

A Texas woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging a Bridgestone tire catastrophically failed during ordinary use, causing her husband to lose control of his vehicle.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lakeisha Durham-Duncan on behalf of the estate of her husband, Tharnell Duncan II, and their minor son, K.R.D., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on September 18. It names Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC and Bridgestone Corporation as defendants.

Durham-Duncan alleges that the Bridgestone tire on the vehicle her husband was driving was prone to premature oxidation and featured an inadequately thin inner liner. She claims those defects increased the risk of premature tread separation, causing the crash that resulted in Duncan’s death.

Vehicle Tire Defects

Tire manufacturers have faced similar product liability lawsuits alleging defects in tire construction can cause the tread to separate from the rest of the tire, resulting in sudden loss of vehicle control and serious crashes.

In December 2025, a jury awarded more than $220 million to the family of several people killed in a crash caused by defective Michelin tires. The lawsuit alleged the Michelin tire was prone to tread separation, which occurred while the family was traveling on a freeway and caused their vehicle to cross into oncoming traffic, where it was involved in a fatal collision.

The complaint identified alleged defects involving belt adhesion, curing, bonding and the tire’s internal construction. It also claimed the tire lacked adequate antioxidant and antiozonant protection, allowing deterioration that contributed to the tread separation and resulting crash.

Bridgestone Tire Defect Allegations

According to his wife’s complaint, Duncan was driving a 2023 Isuzu street sweeper in Denton County, Texas, on November 6 when the tread allegedly separated from one of the vehicle’s tires. He lost control of the street sweeper, which crossed several lanes of traffic before striking a concrete barrier and a light pole. Duncan died from injuries suffered in the crash.

The lawsuit alleges the Bridgestone M895 II tire was prone to tread separation because of defects in its design and construction. According to the complaint, the tire used a skim compound that was susceptible to premature oxidation, weakening the belt edge and increasing the risk that the tread would separate during normal use.

Durham-Duncan also claims the tire was manufactured with an inadequately thin inner liner, which may have allowed excessive oxygen and moisture to penetrate the tire and reach the steel belts. The complaint alleges this accelerated rubber degradation and weakened the internal components holding the tire together.

In addition, the lawsuit maintains Bridgestone failed to use tread, wedge and inner-liner materials capable of withstanding the heat and repeated stress associated with the tire’s rated service. Instead, the materials allegedly experienced thermal and mechanical degradation during ordinary use.

Durham-Duncan further alleges Bridgestone knew about the risk of tread separation but failed to adequately disclose the problem to consumers. The lawsuit claims safer alternative designs were available that could have reduced the risk of tire failure and prevented the crash that resulted in Duncan’s death.

“The Tire Defendants engaged in acts and omissions which (1) when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (2) which Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including Plaintiffs.”

— Lakeisha Durham-Duncan v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and gross negligence. It seeks compensation for Durham-Duncan and K.R.D. for pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, funeral and burial expenses, loss of companionship and loss of inheritance.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.