Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.
217 Cal. App. 4th 138
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Greg Donlen purchased a new Ford F-450 with a three-year/36,000-mile express warranty.
- He had four warranty-related transmission repairs between 2005 and 2006 (two under recall/DSB actions and two overhauls).
- In 2008, after warranty expiration, he incurred a post-warranty repair for the transmission at Ford’s dealer (non-warranty repair).
- Plaintiff demanded repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act; Ford declined, suit followed alleging breach of express and implied warranties.
- At trial, evidence of the 2008 non-warranty repair was admitted; the jury found Ford did not repair to conform to the warranty and awarded restitution, incidental damages, and a nominal civil penalty.
- The trial court later granted Ford a new trial on the basis of alleged legal error from admitting the 2008 repair evidence; the court later reversed that order on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new-trial order was proper based on legal error | Donlen argues no legal error supported new trial | Ford contends admission of 2008 repair was reversible error | New trial order reversed; no error supported grant |
| Whether the non-warranty repair evidence was properly admitted | Evidence relevant to whether warranty conforming repairs occurred | Evidence unduly prejudicial; not relevant to conforming repairs | Evidence properly admitted; did not warrant new trial |
| Whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence | Jury could infer failure to repair conformed to warranty | Record insufficient to show failure to repair | Substantial evidence supports verdict; Ford did not repair to conform during warranty |
| Whether Ford's in limine rulings were properly applied on appeal | Rulings within trial court discretion | Rulings prejudicial; should have been excluded | No reversible error; in limine rulings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (standard for reviewing trial orders granting new trials)
- Treber v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.2d 128 (Cal. 1968) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial rulings when no legal error)
- Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 90 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. App. 2001) (plaintiff need show conformance to warranty; post-warranty evidence may be admissible)
- Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (Cal. App. 2006) (remedial construction of the Act; consumer protection purposes)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1297 (Cal. App. 2009) (post-warranty repair evidence may be admitted to show nonconformance)
- Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. App. 1995) (evidence of other similar repairs may be probative)
- People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997) (admissibility and reliance on hearsay in expert testimony)
- People v. Holford, 203 Cal.App.4th 155 (Cal. App. 2012) (evidence code 352 discretion and prejudice balance)