Problem Vehicles
Some vehicles have common problems. What does this mean.
1. Settlement Settlement can frequently be easier. Internally the manufacturer may establish a settlement protocol.
2. Getting Evidence of Repair
Repair orders and invoices are the backbone of a claim. At best, a repair order shows the customer's complaint date and mileage, diagnosis, work performed, parts, and result. They can prove attempts, defect, and downtime. Sometimes its not that issue. For example, in one case, dealers were informing customers of a widespread problem with transmissions and then the communication stopped, and other causes were stated. Sometimes repair orders will minimize issues or customer complaints. However, even if the dealer does not acknowledge a problem it makes sense to get a repair order confirming the visit.
Photos, video, warning-light shots, tow and rental receipts prove intermittent defects the dealer never duplicated and quantify consequential loss.
3. Showing a Common Problem
TSBs, recalls, and NHTSA complaint data can corroborate that the issue is known. They are stronger for notice and existence of a known condition than as standalone proof that this car is defective.
4. Evidence Issues.
Items like customer complaints on a site or even in a database, can present issues of hearsay, and a skilled defendant will object. We need to see the repair history and question the other owner, otherwise we are denied due process. Court rule FRE 404(a) says: Character evidence is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion someone acted in character. “This manufacturer is a bad actor / always builds lemons” is the forbidden use. Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are barred if offered for propensity, but allowed for non-propensity purposes, including knowledge, intent, plan, absence of mistake, and (in this setting) notice and existence of a systemic defect.
In Magnuson-Moss claim, 404(b) can involve similar incidents with other vehicles of the same year/make/model, same component, similar symptoms, not too remote in time.
| Offered for | Typical ruling tendency |
|---|---|
|
Propensity (“they always refuse buybacks / they make defective cars”) |
Exclude under 404(b)(1) |
|
Manufacturer knowledge / notice of the defect or of a failed repair procedure |
Often admit if substantially similar |
|
Existence of a design or common defect |
Often admit if similarity is tight |
|
Reasonableness of repair attempts / good faith |
Sometimes admit, limited purpose instruction |
|
Unrelated models, different parts, old complaints |
Exclude as irrelevant or under 403 |
California example: Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 138 (2013), allowed other customers' complaints about the same transmission model. Discovery is often cabined to the same year/make/model and the same defect codes or part numbers as the subject vehicle. Substantial similarity is the gate. Without it, OSI is irrelevant. With it, the court still weighs 403.
4. Common disputes
“Same defect” vs. many small defects. Manufacturers parse successive ROs as different problems so no single defect hits the attempt count. Plaintiffs treat the same system or the same symptom cluster (stalling attributed in turn to fuel, ignition, module, sensor) as one defect. The ROs plus testimony about operating conditions decide this.
Whether an NPF / CND visit counts as an attempt. Many courts count a presentation of the concern even if the dealer found nothing; the records and any consumer video become critical.
Substantial impairment. Objective + circumstances of this buyer. Safety defects get more weight. Squeaks, paint, and preference items usually do not.
Causation / owner conduct. Aftermarket tunes, missed oil changes, and accident damage are defense themes. Maintenance records and “stock vehicle” proof answer them.
Experts. Not always required to prove a lemon-law nonconformity (some courts hold a lay jury can see that a new car that will not start or repeatedly stalls is nonconforming). Experts matter more when the theory is design defect, or when the manufacturer claims a different root cause.
Limiting instructions. When OSI or “knowledge” evidence comes in, the court should tell the jury it may not be used as character or “they're always liable.”
How the issues fit together in practice
A clean case is built from this vehicle's ROs, dates, mileage, consistent complaint language, downtime, and warranty timing. Other-acts and industry evidence is supporting fire: it shows the company knew, or that the condition is not a one-off. It collapses if used as a character attack or if the other incidents are not closely matched.
5. Site Organization
We have organized this site to address various common problems. On many pages, there are subpages, such as Q & A or recalls, that further discuss the issues.
Call for a Free Consultation on Your Vehicle Problem
