 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curl v. Volkswagen of America12/2/2005
2002 WL 32063978, took this approach one step further, by focusing also on the need to have a valid warranty. In Browning, the buyer leased from an Isuzu dealership a vehicle that had 11,488 miles on the odometer at the time of the lease. The court, in deciding if the vehicle was a "new motor vehicle" under the Lemon Law, examined the categories of "consumer" in R.C. 1345.71(A) and found that "the presence of [these categories of consumers] is in conflict with the Defendant's argument that only purchasers of new cars are protected." Id. at 3. Therefore, the court held that "a motor vehicle is 'new' as long as it has a valid warranty, is within its first eighteen thousand miles of operation, and is within one year of the original delivery date." Id. at 4.
{ } This court agrees with the reasoning of Browning, but would modify its definition in two respects. First, the requirement of a "valid warranty" is surplusage, since R.C. 1345.72(A) applies only if the vehicle has an "applicable express warranty." Second, in order for the second two requirements to be consistent with, and give effect to, the provisions of the Lemon Law, they should be in the alternative. Therefore, this court holds that a motor vehicle is "new" if it is within its first eighteen thousand miles of operation, or is within one year of the original delivery date to the consumer, whichever is earlier.
{ } Volkswagen's second issue arises from the requirement that the nonconformity be reported within one year following the original delivery date or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier. R.C. 1345.72(A). Since the Beetle had only 14,584 miles when it was presented for repair, Volkswagen's argument is that appellee failed to meet the one-year requirement because Stadium purchased the Beetle on July 31, 2001, and appellee did not present the Beetle for repair until August 19, 2002.
{ } We find this argument unpersuasive. It is clear that the protections of the Lemon Law go to the consumer, not to the dealer who obtained the vehicle from a manufacturer. The time periods during which a dealer holds new vehicles could vary greatly with each vehicle, and could conceivably last longer than one year. In such a circumstance, the consumer purchasing the vehicle would have no redress against the manufacturer in the case of a nonconformity, which would defeat the purpose of the Lemon Law.
{ } Further, all fifty states have enacted lemon law statutes. The vast majority have statutory language providing that the "delivery date" is to the "consumer," the "buyer," or the "purchaser." Ohio's Lemon Law standards are stricter than most state lemon laws. See Royster, supra, at 331. Therefore, consistent with the majority of states, we concludethat the "delivery date" refers to the time the vehicle was first delivered to a "consumer."
{ } Volkswagen relies on Browning, supra, for the proposition that the original delivery date is the date the dealership acquired the vehicle. In Browning, the court of common pleas did not specifically address the issue of the delivery date. Instead, it simply noted in the "facts" section that the plaintiff leased a 1999 vehicle from the dealer on June 27, 2000, and the vehicle's original delivery date was October 6, 1999. This court has no way of ascertaining why the facts were presented as such (e.g., if the vehicle had been previously leased or the parties stipulated or made admissions as to the delivery date). Absent a legal analysis regarding this issue, it is our conclusion that Browning is unsupportive of this issue.
{ } For the reasons set forth above, Volkswagen's first assignment of error is overruled.
{ }
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.
|
|