Lemon Law for California

Build Dates : May 14, 2004 - May 16, 2004

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 04V333000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20040706
Date Received by ODI: 20040708
Date Added to Databse: 20040712

Manufacturer’s Involved: DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: CHRYSLER LLC
Manufacturer Campaign Number: D21

Component: SEAT BELTS:REAR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 21

Summary: 

On certain passenger vehicles, a spot welding operation for the rear floorpan reinforcement may not have been performed.

Consequence: 

This could cause the rear seat belt anchors and/or the child seat anchors to separate in certain crash conditions, which can increase the risk of injury to rear seat passengers.

Remedy: 

Dealers will inspect the rear floorpan reinforcement for missing welds and install structural rivets if necessary. Chrysler recall began on July 6, 2004.

To compound the problem of the unattractiveness of warranty work to the dealership technician, frequently dealer and manufacturer representatives are given training in the Lemon Law, and they will use it to their advantage, and against their customers. An example of this would be, a customer complains for the fourth time in a year of a transmission malfunction. The dealer or manufacturer rep may then say, “But it wasn’t the same transmission part this time, so therefore it does not qualify under the Lemon Law.” “They will say that it was this part one time, a different part the next time, even though it may have been the same part both times. Absolutely, they do things like that in avoidance of lemon law cases.”

Manufacturers have for years been putting out false propaganda that a consumer does not have a lemon law claim unless he or she has four repair attempts for the same defect within the first 18,000 miles. This is simply incorrect. It is an effort by car manufacturers to discourage otherwise worthy consumers from pursuing claims for defective products.

The correct standard is whether the consumer has given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle within the warranty period. A reasonable opportunity usually involves more than one repair attempt; I have seen few cases succeed with only two repair attempts, and juries and judges generally expect at least three repair attempts. “Within the warranty period” means exactly what it says: if your car has a drive train warranty for 70,000 miles and the drive train is defective, then you have 70,000 miles to have the manufacturer make the necessary repairs effectively. If they don’t fix the drive train, and if you have given the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts, then you have a lemon law claim.

Also, if the manufacturer cannot fix the problem within the warranty period, and you notify the manufacturer or its dealership representative in writing within 60 days after the last failure to repair the problem, then the warranty does not expire as to that defect. Thus, if the consumer above had notified the manufacturer of its failure to repair the vehicle within 60 days after the last unsuccessful repair attempt, then the warranty does not expire as to that drive train defect.

There is something called the “lemon law presumption“, and this is the only part of the lemon law where there is a requirement of 4 repair attempts within the first 18,000 miles. This is a legal presumption affecting the burden of proof in a lemon law lawsuit. Normally, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he or she has given the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts to fix the vehicle. If, however, the consumer proves that he or she brought the vehicle in for repairs for the same defect four times within the first 18,000 miles, or if he or she proves that the vehicle was out of service 30 or more days within the first 18,000 miles, then the law shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer to prove that it was not given a reasonable opportunity to fix the vehicle.

As a practical matter, plenty of lemon law cases go forward without the lemon law presumption. The only requirement upon the consumer is that he or she give the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts within the warranty period. If this is done, and the vehicle still is not repaired, the consumer has a lemon law case.