In its June 14, 2013, opinion in Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., the California Court of Appeal held that Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) was not entitled to a new trial due to the trial court’s admission of post-warranty repair evidence in a lemon law action. The Court specifically held, “Evidence that a problem was fixed for a period of time but reappears at a later date is relevant to determining whether a fundamental problem in the vehicle was ever resolved.”
In July 2004, Plaintiff Donlen purchased a new Ford F-450, which was covered by an express limited warranty. Donlen took the truck to the dealer four times during the warranty period, twice due to recall notices related to the transmission and twice due to alleged transmission irregularities. Approximately one year after the warranty period expired, Donlen returned the truck to the dealer, again complaining about transmission issues. Around this time, Donlen demanded that Ford repurchase his truck pursuant to California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”). When Ford refused, Donlen sued Ford for breach of express and implied warranties.
The jury found for Donlen, and Ford moved for a new trial. In support of its motion, Ford claimed that Donlen failed to produce substantial evidence showing the truck was substantially impaired or that Ford failed to repair the vehicle to match the express warranty. Ford also claimed that the trial court erred in denying its motion in limine to exclude evidence of the non-warranty repair.
The trial court granted Ford’s motion for a new trial, holding that the introduction of evidence of the non-warranty repair was highly prejudicial, thus meriting a new trial.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the non-warranty repair was relevant because it had a tendency to establish that the transmission was not fully repaired in conformance with the express warranty. Both the warranty and non-warranty repairs concerned the transmission. Thus, the Court explained, “Post-warranty repair evidence may be admitted on a case-by-case basis where it is relevant to showing the vehicle was not repaired to conform to the warranty during the warranty’s existence.”
Finally, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial to Ford. Consequently, and because Donlen did present substantial evidence of a failure to repair, Ford was not entitled to a new trial, and the matter was remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Donlen.
This document is intended to provide you with information about product liability law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.