Whitt v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.
2011 Ohio 3097
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Whitt, Jr. purchased a 2008 Mazda CX-7 from Park Mazda on June 21, 2008; tire wear and noises from tires led to multiple repairs by Park Mazda and other dealers without resolution.
- Plaintiffs filed a February 12, 2010 complaint in Stark County Common Pleas asserting Lemon Law, breach of express/implied warranties, Magnuson-Moss Act, and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mazda, finding the alleged issues were due to a design defect and not covered by the express warranty.
- Plaintiffs appealed challenging Lemon Law applicability and applicability of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act to warranty claims.
- The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s summary judgment de novo and affirmed, holding Lemon Law did not apply and M-M warranty and related claims were not established under state and federal law.
- The court noted the warranty terms and privity limitations affecting implied warranty claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Lemon Law applies | Whitt argues Lemon Law applies to defects | Mazda contends design defect not covered by Lemon Law | Lemon Law applies only to covered express warranty claims and did not govern here |
| Whether Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act applies/ warranty claims viable | Whitt contends CSPA supports breach of warranty | Mazda argues no breach and CSPA not applicable given lack of privity and coverage | CSPA claims not viable; warranty claims not established against Mazda |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (initial burden on movant for summary judgment; burden-shifting framework)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; clear demonstration of no genuine issue of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment; standard of review for trial court orders)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (summary judgment standard and burden on moving party)
- Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150 (Ohio 1974) (viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant; standard for summary judgment)
- Curl v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2007) (privity requirement for implied warranty claims)