 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curl v. Volkswagen of America12/2/2005
{ } For the foregoing reasons, appellant's assignments of error are not well-taken. The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
COLLEEN MARY O'TOOLE, J., concurs, WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., concurs with Concurring Opinion.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., concurring.
{ } I concur in the well-reasoned majority opinion but write separately to express a finite concern. There is no question that the implied warranty was breached and that Volkswagen was properly required to stand behind its product. The issue of privity, while compelling, is best reserved for another day with more distinct facts. The argument could readily be made that when one enters a building with the name "Volkswagen" emblazoned over the door with neon lights, and then purchases a vehicle manufactured by Volkswagen, one has entered into privity with Volkswagen.
Obviously, if you were then to buy a used Chevrolet inside those premises, the question of privity with Volkswagen has been weakened, but not necessarily extinguished.
{ } The more troubling question presented herein is the definition of "new vehicle" for the purposes of Ohio's Lemon Law. Conceptually, I have difficulty attaching that definition to a vehicle that has been used as a rental vehicle for ten thousand miles over a year's time. Appellee availed himself of a "deal" when he purchased a less than new vehicle. It is troubling to extend the term "new" to such a transaction when instinct, law, and common sense dictate otherwise.
{ } However, as noted by the majority, the matter is affirmed, and I join in that holding, with reservations concerning definitions.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|