 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curl v. Volkswagen of America12/2/2005
loan or lease, and any expenses incurred by the consumer as a result of the nonconformity, such as charges for towing, vehicle rental, meals, and lodging."
{ } Volkswagen admits that the Beetle had a condition that substantially impaired its use, safety or value. Volkswagen further admits that the Beetle was not repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. However, Volkswagen disclaims that the Beetle was a "new motor vehicle," as required by R.C. 1345.72(A), because Stadium purchased the vehicle on July 31, 2001, and used it as a rental for eleven months before selling it. Further, there were 10,435 miles logged on the Beetle at the time it was sold.
{ } Ohio's Lemon Law does not define a "new" or "used" motor vehicle. R.C. 1345.71(D) defines "motor vehicle" as "any passenger car or noncommercial motor vehicle * as defined in section 3781.06 of the Revised Code." R.C. 4501.01(B) simply defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle * that is propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power or power collected from overhead electric trolley wires."
{ } Appellee refers this court to the definition of "new motor vehicle" in R.C. 4517.01(C). R.C. Chapter 4517 governs motor vehicle dealerships. R.C. 4517.01(C) defines "new motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle, the legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, remanufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser." "Ultimate purchaser," as defined in R.C. 4517.01(D) means, "with respect to any new motor vehicle, the first person, other than a dealer purchasing in the capacity of a dealer, who in good faith purchases such new motor vehicle for purposes other than resale."
{ } Were we to use this definition, we would be obliged to find that the Beetle was a "new motor vehicle." Stadium purchased the vehicle "in the capacity of a dealer," as evidenced by its purchase receipt showing that the Beetle was assigned a "Batch Number," and Stadium used its "Resale-New/Used Dealer" tax exemption to purchase it. Therefore, appellee would be the Beetle's first "ultimate purchaser."
{ } However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that "all statutes which relate to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia. * And, in reading such statutes in pari materia, and construing them together, this court must give such a reasonable construction as to give proper force and effect to each and all such statutes." (Citations omitted.) Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 28, 35. In reading R.C. 4517.01(C) in pari materia with R.C. 1345.72(A), we glean that R.C. 1345.72(A) loses its effect, since it requires a "consumer" to report the new motor vehicle non-conformities, and the term"consumer" includes not only purchasers, but also lessees, persons to whom a vehicle is transferred during the warranty period, and persons who can enforce the warranty. It is clear from this definition that a consumer need not be the first purchaser of a vehicle to be entitled to the protection of the statute, provided a manufacturer's express warranty was still in place at the time of transfer.
{ } Some states differentiate between a "new" and "used" motor vehicle in lemon law statutes by focusing not on the "consumer," but on the mileage of the vehicle or the time it was transferred. See, e.g., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 198-b(a)(2), defining "used motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle * which has been purchased, leased, or transferred either after eighteen thousand miles of operation or two years from the date of original delivery, whichever is earlier[.]"
{ } The Ohio Court of Common Pleas in Browning v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc., Case No. 01-CV-4505,
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.
|
|