Ohio Lemon Law

How It All Works

If you buy a new vehicle, the Lemon Law in Ohio covers you for the first 12 months after you take delivery, or the first 18,000 miles of the cars life, whichever comes first. At the time that you purchase the vehicle, the dealer must give you some paperwork advising you of your rights under the Lemon Law.

So you get your car home, and go out the next morning to start it up to drive to work. Rats! Your car won't start or has some other non conformity (I'll get to what that means -- here's an example of a term of art -- at a later time). If your car won't start during this period of time or mileage, then you need to report the problem to the manufacturer, his agent, or authorized dealer so that repairs can be made. The law gives the manufacturer a duty to repair the vehicle.

When a newly purchased vehicle stops working, most folks take it in to the dealership where they purchased it for repairs (and some venting of complaints as well). If you take the vehicle in for repair, the law requires that the dealership must provide you with a detailed statement of the repairs done. Failure to provide a detailed itemized list of these repairs is a violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. You would be extremely wise then to make sure that you get all of this paperwork, and when you get it, to review it to determine its detail. You would also be wise to place it in an organized file because you might just need it down the road. The world and the law smile upon organized people.

You take the vehicle home with your paperwork in your folder. The next morning, you go out to the garage to start it up to go to work. Rats! The darned thing won't start again. So you take it back to the dealership and give them another try at getting it fixed. They call you that afternoon, and tell you that the problem has been fixed. You collect your new paperwork from this repair attempt together with the car and drive it home again. You put your paperwork in your folder.

The next morning, you go out to start the car. Rats and Double Rats! Once again, the car won't start. You take the car back in, and they think they have it fixed again. You collect your paperwork and the car, and the same darn thing happens the next morning. At this point, you are wondering how many times these clowns have to get the car fixed before it is determined to be a Lemon under the law. Fortunately, the law tells us, but unfortunately, it tells us in some pretty vague terms which we will have to wade through at first to better understand the specifics a bit later. If the problems you are having with the vehicle arise to the level of a nonconformity, then you are entitled to relief. A non-conformity is a defect thatsubstantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.

Since all of that is a bit vague (and violations of a vague statute can be difficult to prove or to make a prediction upon whether or not you might win), Ohio's Lemon Law, Revised Code Section 1345.73 gives us a presumption of recovery in certain common, specific situations, meaning that so long as the consumer proves one of the following, he gets his money back or a new car of the same type. Here's what it says:

It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier, any of the following apply:

(A) Substantially the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times and either continues to exist or recurs;

(B) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days;

(C) There have been eight or more attempts to repair any nonconformity;

(D) There has been at least one attempt to repair a nonconformity that results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and the nonconformity either continues to exist or recurs.

So if you have taken the vehicle in for repairs in accordance with the above, then you may well be entitled to relief under the provisions of the Lemon Law in Ohio. But remember that the conditions above merely give rise to a presumption that the Defendant (usually the car dealer) has violated the act. There can be defects with the vehicle which do not meet the above specific categories above which can still give rise to a violation of Ohio's Lemon Law.

The Fifth Appellate District Court has ruled that the presumptions listed in Ohio Revised Code Section 1345.73 are just that, presumptions. They are not requirements that the consumer has to prove. But the inverse is also true. Don't think that just because you took your car in for the required number of times listed above, that you automatically win. You still have to prove that the defect was a non-conformity.

A. Timing Issues

When we are looking at the nonconformity, it must show up during the first 18,000 miles or the first 12 months, whichever is sooner. But if it continues to show up even after that time period, then you can still bring a lawsuit under the Lemon Law for your remedies. The reasoning here is that the consumer should not be penalized for giving the manufacturer extra chances to repair the problem after the 18,000 mile or 12 month period.

VI. Nonconformity Defined

The Ohio Legislature understood when it passed the law that some consumers are just a bit too picky. They also understood that there would be times when a buyer purchased one vehicle, and then because of cost or some other regret (perhaps styling), such buyer became dissatisfied with the choice. The Ohio Legislature did not intend Ohio's Lemon Law to be a "do over" statute, allowing consumers to unwind their purchases anytime during the year by making up some minor complaint.

So not every little problem with a new car will give rise to relief under Ohio's Lemon Law. Ohio Revised Code Section 1345.71(E) states that "Nonconformity" means any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor. We have to turn to the case law to determine whether or not a defect in the car is "nonconformity" sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under the act. It is important to remember though that when considering whether a defect amounts to a non-conformity, the judge or jury must look at the defect from the consumer's perspective

A. Impaired Use Obviously, if the darned thing won't start, then the vehicle's use is impaired. I say that such a thing is obvious, though there was a point in time when a company called Toyota Motor Distributors of America argued that unless the consumer showed evidence that the vehicle's not starting was linked to a defect, then its failure to start was not a defect. This argument was considered by the Sixth Appellate District Court and rejected. I suppose then, that it is safe to say that such a thing is obvious now. That same court also held that simply because the Defendant can't find the problem does not constitute a defense to a Lemon Law claim.

But what about lesser problems? The same is true if the vehicle won't perform other essential functions. It wouldn't be too hard to argue that a lack of heat or windshield wipers that won't work would limit the vehicle's ability to be used in certain weather conditions.

1. What Has Worked

Let's look at some examples. The Fifth Appellate District has found that leaking windows in a vehicle constituted impaired use.

2. What Has Not Worked

If the court thinks that you are being too picky, or it gets the sense that you are just using the Lemon Law to get out of your obligations under the contract of sale, then it will not award you relief under the Lemon Law. Minor problems that are a mere annoyance to the operation of the vehicle won't work.

An intermittent groaning, grinding noise on turns and vibrations in the steering column without more, has been held not to be a nonconformity by Ohio Courts. A warning light that kept coming on for no reason has been held not to be a non-conformity under Ohio law so long as nothing more than the light was actually wrong. Where the owner of the vehicle only heard a noise when making a left turn when the windows are rolled up, the radio is turned off, the air conditioner is turned off, and there is no conversation in the vehicle, this is not a defect which impairs the use of the vehicle. Also, the Third District Court of Appeals has held that problems relating to the "fit and finish" of the car do not substantially impair its use.

If you are asserting a claim under the Lemon Law and the Defendant is alleging that it cannot duplicate the problem or that the problem is a normal characteristic of the vehicle's design and operation (for instance, if you get big tires with those knobby pieces sticking off of them for more off-road traction on a four by four pick up truck, you cannot be heard to complain that the noise from the tires is louder than the noise a normal car would make), then you will need to introduce expert testimony at the trial to contradict the Defendant's assertions.

Expert testimony does not have to come from a professor of mechanical engineering at Harvard. Anyone who has more knowledge than the ordinary person would have can qualify as an expert (though a degree or many years of work experience is often very useful to increase the expert's credibility with the judge or jury).

B. Value

If the value of the car has been impaired, then this will constitute a non-conformity. The consumer then will need to show the court that the value of the vehicle has been diminished. Slight diminutions in the value of the vehicle will not be sufficient. The Eighth District Court of Appeals has held that a diminution in value of only five percent is insufficient to constitute the loss of value needed under a Lemon Law claim in Ohio. Expert testimony should be used to determine this, though it has often been held in Ohio that owners of goods are competent to give an opinion as to their value.

C. Safety

If the defect causes a safety issue, then it is a non-conformity. Many problems affecting the use of the vehicle rise to this level. Obviously, anything that could cause an accident would give rise to a safety issue and thus be a non-conformity. This is true even if the defect is not actually the cause of an accident.

D. Mere Repair by Manufacturer Insufficient to Escape Liability

Simply because the manufacturer was able to finally get the vehicle repaired does not mean that it can get out of a lawsuit. For instance, let's say the vehicle was in the shop for not just 30 days during that first year, but rather for almost two months. Let's further suppose that at the end of the two month period, everyone admits that the vehicle is free from all defects and nonconformities. The trouble is that the 30 day period was exceeded. The Ohio Supreme Court has held in Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 327 at 330-331 that:

R.C. 1345.73(B), marks as thirty days the limit that a consumer need tolerate having his or her vehicle out of service in the first year of ownership. Whether the vehicle is driveable after that thirty days is irrelevant. Indeed, the statute speaks in terms of a cumulative thirty days out of service. Thus, the vehicle could have entered the shop on numerous occasions and been repaired each time. The unavailability of the new car is the key element. The fact that a consumer cannot drive a newly purchased vehicle for a full month in the first year of ownership defines the vehicle as a lemon. The General Assembly struck thirty days as the balance between what a consumer must endure and the time a manufacturer needs to make necessary repairs. Nothing beyond thirty days is statutorily reasonable. Once the boundaries of reasonableness have been passed, the vehicle at that point becomes, legally, a lemon. [italics in original]

By leaving little room for interpretation, R.C. 1345.73 leaves little room for litigation. As a consumer-protection law, the Lemon Law must be simple and must have teeth in order be effective. The law is designed for self-help without protracted litigation. To work well, the statute needs a harsh remedy at a time certain. Ohio's Lemon Law does that better than most states' laws:

Ohio's standards for 'reasonable number of attempts' are among the most stringent in the nation in that the number of repair attempts before liability attaches is low. * * * Under the lemon law, the consumer need only show that his automobile has been unsuccessfully repaired the requisite number of times and the Act takes effect. Unless the manufacturer can show that the defects were not substantial or were the fault of the consumer, the manufacturer will be forced to replace the car or refund the purchase price. Comment, Ohio's Lemon Law: Ohio Joins the Rest of the Nation in Waging War Against the Automobile Limited Warranty (1989), 57 Univ. of Cincinnati L.J. 1015, 1032.

So just because the manufacturer was finally able to fix the vehicle does not amount to a defense against the action. You can still obtain your remedy under the statute if the court rules that the vehicle had a non-conformity.

Having trouble finding what you are looking for, then search our site below:

	www.ohiolandlordtenant.com