Wisconsin "lemon law" allows suits for defective vehicle components
law lemon wisconsin 2007 :
CONSUMER PROTECTION
A Wisconsin appellate court held that a trucking company violated the state's lemon law when it sold a defective truck, even though the defect related to a component of the truck rather than the entire vehicle.
Here, a truck driver filed suit against a truck manufacturer, alleging that it had refused to replace a defective truck as required by Wisconsin's lemon law, Wis. Stat. [sec] 218.0171. A jury found for plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the lemon law makes manufacturers liable only for conditions that do not conform to an express warranty. Defendant asserted that unrefuted expert testimony at trial proved that the "nonconformity" in plaintiff's truck resulted from the engine, which was manufactured by a different company and not covered by the express warranty.
Affirming, the state high court said the language of the lemon law unambiguously places liability on the manufacturer, even for component parts. Had the legislature intended to limit the scope of the statute to manufacturers' express warranties, it could have done so.
The lemon law was initially enacted in 1983, at which time "nonconformity" was defined as a condition or defect "covered by an express warranty applicable to the motor vehicle." In 1985, this language was changed to include a condition applicable to the vehicle "or to a component of the motor vehicle." The change in the statute was clearly intended to expand coverage beyond the vehicle manufacturer's express warranty for the vehicle as a whole.
The court added that the statute prohibits waiver of consumers' rights and protections. When a manufacturer excludes components from its warranty, it is effectively compelling consumers to waive their rights under the lemon law for nonconformities in these parts, the court said. A manufacturer cannot simply exclude all major parts from its warranty to avoid lemon law liability. To do so would leave consumers with the inadequate, uncertain, and expensive remedies that the lemon law was designed to supersede.
The court concluded that the language of the lemon law unambiguously makes defendant liable for nonconformities in the engine, even though the engine is not covered in defendant's express warranty.
Plaintiff's Counsel
