Carpenter v. Chrysler Corp.
1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 853 S.W.2d 346, 1993 WL 128183 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court possesses broad, virtually immune discretion to grant a single new trial on the grounds that a jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence. However, a new trial granted on the basis of specific legal errors, such as improper jury instructions or insufficient evidence, will be reversed on appeal if the appellate court determines the trial court's legal reasoning was incorrect.
Facts:
- Chrysler Corporation had an 'Overnight Evaluation Program' (OEP) where employees drove new cars home with the odometers disconnected to assess quality before shipment to dealers.
- A 1986 Chrysler LeBaron used in the OEP was shipped to Chrysler-Plymouth West (CPW), a dealership. While on the lot, CPW discovered and repaired a power steering leak.
- Chrysler sent CPW a recall notice for a wiring harness defect on the LeBaron, but CPW did not perform the repair.
- Brian Carpenter visited CPW seeking a reliable car for his daughters. A salesman recommended the LeBaron, calling it a 'good car, reliable, brand new,' despite its known repair history and the fact it would not start for a test drive.
- Carpenter purchased the LeBaron in August 1986. Almost immediately, he experienced numerous problems including power steering failure, oil leaks, ignition trouble, and a faulty electronic dash.
- Carpenter returned the car to CPW for repairs multiple times over several months, but the problems persisted. CPW never repaired the recalled wiring harness.
- In July 1987, Carpenter received a letter from Chrysler's chairman, Lee Iacocca, informing him that his 'new' car had been used in the OEP with its odometer disconnected.
- After learning of the odometer issue and facing persistent mechanical failures, Carpenter stopped making payments on the car, which was later repossessed by CPW and resold at auction.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian and Kendra Carpenter sued Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler-Plymouth West (CPW) in a Missouri trial court.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the Carpenters against both Chrysler (for statutory odometer fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation) and CPW (for breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation), awarding both actual and punitive damages.
- Following the verdict, both Chrysler and CPW filed motions for a new trial.
- The trial court granted both motions, setting aside the jury's verdict and ordering a new trial for each defendant.
- The Carpenters, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order granting the new trials to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by setting aside the jury's verdict and granting a new trial to defendants Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler-Plymouth West?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephan, J.
Yes, as to defendant CPW, but no, as to defendant Chrysler. A trial court's decision to grant a new trial is reviewed differently depending on the stated grounds. The trial court's grant of a new trial to Chrysler on the discretionary ground that the verdict was 'against the greater weight of the evidence' is affirmed, as this is a power a trial court may exercise with virtual certainty that the ruling is immune from appellate interference. However, the trial court's grant of a new trial to CPW was based on specific findings of legal error regarding jury instructions, damages, and evidence, all of which this court finds to be incorrect upon review. For example, the dealer's representations that the car was 'reliable' and 'new' constituted statements of fact creating an express warranty, not mere puffery, especially given the dealer's superior knowledge and failure to disclose known defects. The trial court also erred in finding the punitive damages award against CPW was unconstitutional, as Missouri's standards for awarding and reviewing such damages are consistent with the due process requirements outlined in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip. Since the trial court’s specified legal reasons for granting CPW a new trial were without merit, that order is reversed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant distinction between a trial court's discretionary and legal grounds for granting a new trial. It confirms that an appellate court will give almost complete deference to a trial court's 'weight of the evidence' determination, making it a powerful tool for trial judges who disagree with a jury's finding. Conversely, the decision demonstrates that when a trial court provides specific legal justifications for a new trial, those justifications are fully subject to appellate review and reversal if found to be erroneous. This holding clarifies the boundaries of trial court authority and shapes appellate strategy, encouraging parties to scrutinize the precise grounds cited in an order for a new trial.
