Rodriguez v. Chrysler Group LLC
76 So. 3d 1279
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Levi Rodriguez purchased a 2006 Dodge 3500 with Basic Limited Warranty and Cummins Diesel Engine Limited Warranty for up to 5 years/100,000 miles.
- Plaintiff filed suit on June 27, 2008, seeking redhibition, damages, and attorney fees for alleged defects.
- The truck was returned to Gainesville Dodge in May 2008 with a knocking noise during the warranty period and had high mileage at tow.
- Defendant contended the alleged problems stemmed from Plaintiff’s misuse, improper maintenance, or instructions violations.
- Bench trial held November 22, 2010 resulted in a judgment for Defendant; Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMSWA claims were properly considered | Rodriguez urged MMSWA applicability. | Chrysler argued no MMSWA pleading or evidence existed. | No MMSWA error; no MMSWA pleading or evidence. |
| Whether the court should have applied Magnuson-Moss | Rodriguez sought MMSWA relief. | No pleading; not before the court. | Court did not err in not applying MMSWA. |
| Whether engine defect existed under redhibition | Engine defective; redhibitory defect present. | Defect not proven; device usage caused failure. | No manifest error; plaintiff failed to prove redhibitory defect. |
| Whether performance-enhancing device caused engine failure and voided warranty | Device not proven cause; warranty not voided. | Evidence showed device caused turbocharger and engine failure. | Trial court's credibility findings supported defense; device caused failure. |
| Attorney fees requested by plaintiff | Entitled to reasonable attorney fees if successful. | No entitlement to fees given defense win. | Costs assessed to Plaintiff; no fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hearod v. Select Motor, Co., Inc., 980 So.2d 830 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of factual findings in redhibition)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (review for manifest error; reasonable conclusions)
- Tidwell v. Premier Staffing, Inc., 921 So.2d 1194 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (two permissible views; appellate not to reverse absent manifest error)
- Pardue v. Ryan Chevrolet, Inc., 719 So.2d 623 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1998) (definition of redhibitory vice and buyer’s remedy)
- Blackman v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 966 So.2d 1185 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (reliance on manifest error standard for fact-based findings)