Case Summary - Magit

The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Verdict Report (September 19, 1997)
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act


Verdict: $39,988.68, plus costs and attorney’s fees.

Case Name: Magit v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Attorneys:

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq.
Defendant’s Counsel: Manuel Saldana, Esq., of Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon.

FACTS:

Plaintiff purchased a 1993 Toyota Landcruiser in December of 1992 for $40,138.53. Beginning in January of 1993, plaintiff began experiencing water leaking into the passenger cabin of the vehicle during rainstorms. Plaintiff did not experience water leakage during most routine car washes, but did on one occasion. Plaintiff and her minor son suffered allergies which were aggravated by molds and mildew, and the fluid leakage caused moldy smells in the passenger cabin. TOYOTA and its dealers, Mike Miller Toyota and Sheridan Toyota, undertook repair efforts on the vehicle for the water leakage on four to five occasions during the first year, and on several occasions thereafter. While plaintiff admitted that the repairs improved the car’s water leakage problem, she testified that the car continued to get wet in the passenger cabin during rainstorms. Plaintiff continued to drive the car as she had no alternative transportation. At the time of trial, plaintiff had compiled approximately 75,000 miles on the car. Defendant TOYOTA undertook various repairs to the sunroof, the rocker panel and the drainage system leading from the sunroof to the rocker panel, but plaintiff’s complaints persisted. TOYOTA claimed it could not duplicate the problem, but plaintiff produced evidence that at least two TOYOTA-trained technicians from the dealerships, Gary Myers and Tom Golden, had confirmed the existence of the problem. TOYOTA’s expert Michael Houghtling conducted a vehicle inspection, during which it sprayed water from a hose on to the car’s outer surface for 30 to 45 minutes, and then ran the car through a car wash, but this testing did not reveal the existence of the leaks into the passenger cabin. Plaintiff also complained of excessive brake wear on the vehicle, resulting in the need to replace brake pads and rotors at very frequent intervals. TOYOTA contended that the brake wear shown by the evidence was not abnormal, particularly for a TOYOTA Landcruiser.

CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff contended that TOYOTA breached its written warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, and thus breached its obligations to her under the Song-Beverly Act. Defendant TOYOTA contended that the car’s water leakage problem had been repaired not later than March of 1994, and that the car was defect-free thereafter. TOYOTA also contended that the car was in merchantable condition as of the time that it contends that it repaired the water leakage problem. TOYOTA also contended that the brake wear on the vehicle was not abnormal. Finally, TOYOTA contended that the plaintiff had not been damaged because she had driven the car for 75,000 miles.

DAMAGES:

Plaintiff sought restitution of her purchase price under the Song-Beverly Act, in the amount of $40,138.53. Plaintiff also sought a civil penalty of $10,000.00 under Song-Beverly. The jury did not award a civil penalty.

<<<BACK