4.45 MOTOR VEHICLE LEMON LAW model jury charge
The
purpose of the so-called New Jersey “Lemon Law” is to protect buyers or lessees
when they buy or lease a motor vehicle and the manufacturer cannot correct
defects in the vehicle.
The
lemon law does not apply to every defect in an automobile. It is not a guarantee against every
defect. It applies to a defect that
substantially impairs the use, value or safety of a vehicle.
To
establish his/her claim under the Lemon Law, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance
of the credible evidence each of the following five elements of the claim. The elements are:
1. The
plaintiff purchased/leased a vehicle manufactured by the defendant, [insert
the defendant’s name];
2. The
vehicle had nonconformity or nonconformities that is/are, a defect or defects
that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle.
To
substantially impair, the defect or condition must impair the use, value or
safety in an important, essential or significant way. When I use the term “substantial,” I do not
mean a defect, impairment or condition that is minor, trivial or
unimportant.
In determining whether a defect or
condition substantially impairs the use or value of the vehicle, you can
consider whether the defects or conditions have shaken the plaintiff’s
confidence in the vehicle. If the defect
has shaken the plaintiff’s confidence in the vehicle, this loss of confidence
may be the basis for you to find that the defect has impaired the vehicle’s use
or value. You must consider this from
both a subjective and objective point of view.
From a subjective standpoint, the
defects must be examined from the point of view of this particular
plaintiff. From an objective standpoint,
the defects that allegedly have shaken the plaintiff’s confidence must be
consistent with what a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have
believed under the same or similar circumstances.
For example, in deciding whether a
specific defect or condition substantially impairs the use or value of a
vehicle, you may consider whether the specific defect or condition complained
of, in fact caused the plaintiff to lose confidence in this vehicle. Even if you find that the plaintiff’s
confidence in the vehicle was shaken, you must also consider whether or not the
specific defect or condition, if any, was such that a reasonable person would
have lost confidence in the vehicle.
NOTE TO JUDGE
If the manufacturer raises
either or both of the affirmative defenses set forth below, the following language
would be appropriate. N.J.S.A.
56:12-40.
The
manufacturer, in this case, has raised as a defense to the plaintiff’s claim
that the alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair the use, value or
safety of the vehicle and/or that the nonconformity is the result of abuse,
neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the vehicle by someone
other than the manufacturer or its dealer.
If you find the manufacturer has proven, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair the use,
value or safety of the vehicle and/or that the nonconformity is the result of
abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the vehicle by
someone other than the manufacturer or its dealer, then you must find that
there is no nonconformity within the meaning of the “Lemon Law.”
[Charge
Continues]
3. The
non-conformity occurred during the first 18,000 miles of use, or within two
years after the date of original delivery to plaintiff, whichever is earlier.
4. The
plaintiff reported the non-conformity to the manufacturer or its dealer during
the first 18,000 miles of use, or during the period of two years following the
date of original delivery to the plaintiff, whichever is earlier.
5. [insert
the defendant’s name], through its authorized dealers, did not repair the
non-conformity or non-conformities within a reasonable time.
NOTE TO JUDGE
The following language
should be charged in those cases where it is alleged the conditions for the
presumption have been met. Note, the two
year term and two year period specified shall be extended by any period of time
during which repair services were not available to the consumer because of war,
invasion or strike, or a fire, flood, or other natural disaster. N.J.S.A. 56:12-33.
It
is presumed that a manufacturer or its dealer is unable to repair or correct a
non-conformity within a reasonable time if, within the first 18,000 miles of
operation, or during the period of 2 years following the date of original
delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever is the earlier date:
(a) substantially
the same non-conformity has been subject to repair three or more times by the
manufacturer, or its dealer, and the nonconformity continued to exist; or
(b)
the motor vehicle
was out of service by reason of repair for one or more nonconformities for a
cumulative total of 20 or more calendar days.
(c)
since the
original delivery of the motor vehicle and nonconformity continues to exist.
This
presumption, however, shall only apply against the manufacturer, if the
manufacturer has received written notification, by or on behalf of the
plaintiff, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of a potential claim
pursuant to this law and has had one opportunity to repair or correct the
defect or condition within 10 calendar days following receipt of the
notification. The notification by the
plaintiff shall take place any time after the motor vehicle has had
substantially the same nonconformity subject to repair two or more times or has
been out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 20 or more
calendar days.
[Charge
Continues]
If
you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has proven all
five elements, then you must find for the plaintiff on the Lemon Law
claim.
But,
if you find that the plaintiff has failed to establish all five elements, then
you will find for the defendant.
NOTE TO JUDGE
In the event that there are
factual disputes as to any of the damage elements of a “Lemon Law” claim, the
court should provide damage instructions.
See, N.J.S.A. 56:12-32 and 56:12-42.
In the event the parties
have stipulated the amount of damages, the language set forth below would
outline for the jury the ultimate outcome.
DiVigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314 (App.
Div. 2001).
If
then a plaintiff reports a nonconformity in a motor vehicle to the manufacturer
or its dealer during the first 18,000 miles of operation, or during the period
of two years following the date of the original delivery of the motor vehicle
to the plaintiff, whichever is earlier, the manufacturer is required to make,
arrangements with its dealer to make, within a reasonable period of time, all
repairs necessary to correct the nonconformity.
If
the manufacturer is unable to correct nonconformity within a reasonable time,
the manufacturer shall accept return of the motor vehicle from the plaintiff.
The manufacturer shall also provide the plaintiff with a full refund of the
purchase/lease price and any other charges, fees and costs, less a reasonable
allowance for the use of the motor vehicle, which shall be calculated by the
court.[1]
Lemon Law Model Jury Verdict Sheet
1. Did the plaintiff prove that he/she purchased/leased a vehicle
manufactured by the defendant?
YES _____________ VOTE _____________
NO _____________ VOTE _____________
If your answer is “yes”, proceed to question 2.
If your answer is “no”, stop
your deliberations and return your verdict.
2.
Did the plaintiff prove that the vehicle had nonconformity or
nonconformities, which substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the
vehicle?
YES _____________ VOTE _____________
NO _____________ VOTE _____________
If your answer is “yes”, proceed to question 3.
If your answer is “no”, stop
your deliberations and return your verdict.
3.
Did the plaintiff prove the non-conformity occurred during the first
18,000 miles of use or within 2 years after the date of original delivery to
plaintiff, whichever is earlier?
YES ____________ VOTE _____________
NO ____________ VOTE _____________
NO ____________ VOTE _____________
If your answer is
“yes”, proceed to question 4.
If your
answer is “no”, stop your deliberations and return your verdict.
4. Did the
plaintiff prove he/she reported the non-conformity to the manufacturer or its
dealer during the first 18,000 miles of use or during the period of 2 years
following the date of original delivery to the plaintiff, whichever is earlier?
YES ___________ VOTE ______________
NO ___________ VOTE ______________
If your answer is “yes”, proceed to question 5.
If your answer is “no”, stop
your deliberations and return your verdict.
5. Did the plaintiff prove that the manufacturer, through its
authorized dealers, did not repair the non-conformity or non-conformities
within a reasonable time?
YES ______________ VOTE ______________
NO ______________ VOTE ______________
[Insert
specific damage question, if appropriate.]
See
N.J.S.A. 56:12-32 and N.J.S.A. 56:12-42.
