Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mendola
427 N.J. Super. 226
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Mendola leased a 2005 Jaguar S-Type; lease payments were $765 monthly.
- Car damaged in January 2007; Modern Auto Body repaired it over two months at nearly $15,000.
- Repairs were approved by Madison Jaguar (Main Auto Sales) before returning car to Mendola in April 2007.
- In March 2007 a recall letter regarding fuel tank components was issued; recall discussed potential fuel issues.
- Shortly after return, Mendola noticed warning lights; car later overheated and engine seized; service reports indicated coolant/oil issues.
- No party produced an expert report by discovery end; third-party defendants moved for summary judgment; trial court dismissed Mendola’s third-party claims as unsupported without expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears initial burden of proof on expert evidence | Mendola argued third parties must produce an expert report first. | Defendants contended Mendola must prove causation without expert proof or that defendants failed to meet defense burden. | Initial burden on expert proof depends on claim; for negligence/inspection, expert required; for express warranty, not always. |
| Negligence/inspection claims require expert testimony | Circumstantial proximity to repairs could prove negligence without experts. | Expert testimony is needed to prove defect and causation. | Court upheld dismissal of negligence/inspection claims for lack of expert testimony. |
| Circumstantial evidence suffices to prove defect | Circumstantial evidence can prove a defect under Myrlak framework. | Circumstantial evidence insufficient given age, maintenance, and other potential causes. | Circumstantial evidence not enough to prove a defect in this case; expert testimony required. |
| Express warranty claims can proceed without showing defect | Breach of express warranty requires proving non-performance, not necessarily a defect. | Need to prove defect or failure to perform under warranty defense if applicable. | Mendola can pursue breach of express warranty without proving a defect; burden allocation discussed; remanded for further proceedings on warranty. |
| Product Liability Act applicability to damages | Product liability could apply to repair/defect claims; circumstantial proof possible. | Damages to the product itself or purely economic losses fall outside Product Liability Act. | Product liability theory does not apply to damage to the vehicle itself or purely economic losses under NJ law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scanlon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 N.J. 582 (1974) (motor vehicle complexity; common experience limits; expert needed for causation)
- Myrlak v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 157 N.J. 84 (1999) (adopts Restatement on defect proof without expert in some product cases)
- Spring Motors Distribs., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 N.J. 555 (1985) (economic damages; warranty context; design/manufacturing defect concepts)
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358 (1960) (warranty protections; consumer expectations; expert necessity variances)
- Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc., 65 N.J. 336 (1974) (express warranty burden shift; less is required to reach jury)
- Jankowitz v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 216 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 1987) (breach of express warranty; no expert proof required to prove non-repair)
- Cintrone v. Hertz Truck Leasing & Rental Srvc., 45 N.J. 434 (1965) (defenses and burden allocation in product claims; misuse as defense)
- Alloway v. Gen. Marine Indus., L.P., 149 N.J. 620 (1997) (product liability scope; damages and warranty considerations)