Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
750 N.E.2d 531, 92 Ohio St. 3d 327 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio's Lemon Law, specifically R.C. 1345.73(B), a consumer is presumed to have a right to recovery if their new vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership, regardless of whether the vehicle was eventually repaired successfully.
Facts:
- On February 3, 1996, Kimberly G. Royster leased a new 1996 Toyota 4-Runner which was warranted by Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota) with a three-year/thirty-six-thousand-mile warranty.
- Approximately nine months later, on November 7, 1996, Royster noticed the vehicle leaking a red fluid and had it towed to the dealership.
- The dealership determined the 4-Runner had a leaking head gasket but encountered difficulty locating the correct replacement part.
- The repair was not completed until December 31, 1996, resulting in the vehicle being unavailable to Royster for fifty-five days.
- Toyota on the Heights provided Royster with a used Toyota Camry as a loaner at no charge beginning on November 15, 1996.
- On January 6, 1997, Royster returned the vehicle to the dealership to address minor paint problems on a door and brake issues that required resurfacing due to disuse, which were subsequently repaired.
- After January 6, 1997, Royster experienced no further mechanical difficulties with the 4-Runner.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly G. Royster filed a Lemon Law claim against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. in the trial court.
- Both Royster and Toyota filed motions for summary judgment with the trial court.
- On June 9, 1998, the trial court granted Royster’s motion for summary judgment, finding her entitled to recovery based on the Lemon Law’s presumption for vehicles out of service for 30 or more days, and awarded her damages and attorney fees.
- Toyota appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Eighth District Court of Appeals (Toyota was the appellant, Royster the appellee).
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision, holding that the 55 days out of service did not create a presumption of recovery because the dealership made a reasonable number of attempts and was ultimately successful in conforming the car to its warranty.
- The cause came before the Supreme Court of Ohio upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal by Royster (Royster was the appellant, Toyota the appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Ohio's Lemon Law, specifically R.C. 1345.73(B), create a presumption of recovery for a consumer if their vehicle is out of service for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership, even if the vehicle is subsequently repaired and conforms to its warranty?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfeifer, J.
Yes, a consumer enjoys a presumption of recovery under R.C. 1345.73(B) if his or her vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership, regardless of whether the vehicle was successfully repaired at some point beyond that thirty-day period. The court reasoned that R.C. 1345.73 is the 'enough is enough' portion of the Lemon Law, which defines when a vehicle becomes a lemon based on the amount of repair activity. For subsection (B), the statute sets a clear 30-day limit for a vehicle being out of service in its first year, with the unavailability of the new car being the key element. This legislative choice strikes a balance between consumer endurance and manufacturer repair time, making anything beyond thirty days statutorily unreasonable. The court emphasized that the law is designed to be simple and provide a 'harsh remedy at a time certain' to be effective consumer protection. The provision of a loaner car, while an admirable gesture, does not provide a statutory defense against a Lemon Law claim, as the law's focus is on the defective automobile itself.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Cook, J.
No, R.C. 1345.73(B) does not create a 'presumption of recovery' but rather a presumption that the manufacturer has undertaken a reasonable number of repair attempts. However, the court of appeals erred by requiring the vehicle to 'remain defective' after repairs. Justice Cook agreed with the majority that the appellate court's reasoning—that a vehicle cannot be a 'lemon' if it is eventually repaired—rendered R.C. 1345.73(B) ineffective by inserting a nonexistent condition. This conflicts with the General Assembly's intent to provide a remedy for vehicles 'out of service' for thirty days or more. However, Cook disagreed with the majority's conclusion that R.C. 1345.73(B) creates a 'presumption of recovery,' arguing that the statute only establishes a presumption regarding a 'reasonable number of repair attempts,' which is merely one element of a Lemon Law claim under R.C. 1345.72(B). Recovery itself is provided under R.C. 1345.72. Furthermore, Justice Cook contended that statutory presumptions, unless explicitly designated as conclusive, are generally rebuttable, and R.C. 1345.73(B) does not contain such language, implying it should be a rebuttable presumption.
Dissenting - Lundberg Stratton, J.
No, a thirty-day delay in repair, especially when the defect is completely corrected, should not create a virtually irrebuttable presumption of recovery. Justice Lundberg Stratton argued that the true purpose and spirit of the Lemon Law is to provide a remedy when a consumer loses confidence in their vehicle due to a significant or persistent defect that cannot be repaired, or cannot be repaired in a reasonable number of attempts. In this case, the engine defect was subject to a single repair that completely corrected the issue. She agreed with Justice Cook that R.C. 1345.73(B) merely provides a presumption that the manufacturer has undertaken a 'reasonable number of attempts' to repair, not a presumption of recovery. Crucially, she believed this presumption is rebuttable and was, in fact, rebutted here, as the delay was solely due to the unavailability of a replacement part, not an inability to diagnose or repair the defect. This type of delay, she argued, does not lessen a consumer's confidence in the vehicle's operation. She also noted that Toyota provided Royster with a loaner vehicle, mitigating the inconvenience. The majority's holding, she asserted, distorts the Lemon Law's purpose and could allow consumers to return new vehicles that are not genuine 'lemons'.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Ohio's Lemon Law, establishing a bright-line rule for the 'out of service' provision under R.C. 1345.73(B). The ruling prevents manufacturers from avoiding liability by eventually fixing a vehicle after a prolonged period, ensuring that the sheer unavailability of a new car for a cumulative 30 days within its first year is sufficient to trigger consumer protection. This strengthens consumer rights by reducing the burden of proof and limiting the ability of courts to inject additional requirements, such as proving the vehicle remains defective after repair. It promotes prompt repairs by manufacturers, as extended repair times carry a clear statutory consequence, thereby reducing protracted litigation over what constitutes a 'reasonable' repair period.
