The Trial Court’s Error In Giving The Jury Plaintiff’s Special Instruction That Took Out Of Context The Statutory Requisites For Tolling Express Warranties, As Are Properly Embodied In CACI 3231, Was Prejudicial.
In Nunez v. FCA US LLC, Case Nos. B297453/B299208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 February 26, 2021) (published), plaintiff brought a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.) (commonly known as California’s lemon law) against the manufacturer of the Jeep Patriot she had purchased as a used car regarding a throttle issue she began experiencing over two-and-a-half years after purchase, and that the original owner had experienced about a month before plaintiff’s purchase.
The case went to jury trial, and at the close of plaintiff’s case in chief, defendant moved for nonsuit on all causes of action – with the trial court granting as to plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim. On the remaining claims, the jury returned unanimous special verdicts in plaintiff’s favor – awarding plaintiff $15,126.33 in damages plus a penalty of two times the damages amount, for a total of $45,378.99, based on findings that the car had a warranty covered defect that substantially impaired its use, value or safety which defendant failed to repair after a reasonable number of opportunities, that defendant willfully failed to begin repairs within a reasonable time and complete repairs within 30 days, and that defendant willfully failed to replace or repurchase the vehicle. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and awarded plaintiff $179,510 in fees and $31,888.49 in costs – out of a requested $383,758.02.
Defendant appealed the judgment due to instructional error, along with the post-trial orders, and the fees award. Plaintiff cross-appealed – seeking reversal of the trial court’s order granting a nonsuit on the implied warranty claim should defendant succeed in reversing the judgment.
As to defendant’s appeal of the judgment, the 2/8 DCA reversed and remanded – finding prejudice occurred with the trial court’s error in giving the jury plaintiff’s special instruction that took out of context the statutory requisites for tolling express warranties and conflicted with CACI No. 3231, which properly embodies the statutory requisites and was also given to the jury. This reversal necessitated reversal of the fees awarded to plaintiff.
As to plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the panel affirmed – finding plaintiff’s implied warranty claim failed because under the lemon law only distributors and retail sellers, not manufacturers, are liable for breach of implied warranties in the sale of a used car where, as in this case, the manufacturer did not offer the used car for sale to the public.
Comments