This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Breach of Warranty
Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

Michael Drop v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Victorville Motorcycle Center

Published: Sep. 22, 2007 | Result Date: Jul. 17, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC869075 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Darrel C. Horsted


Defendant

Thomas W. Ely


Experts

Plaintiff

William S. Cain
(technical)

Defendant

John Horensky
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Michael Drop, 38, purchased a new 2004 Kawasaki Vulcan VN1600 Mean Streak Motorcycle from defendant Victorville Motorcycle center on July 9, 2005. He brought the vehicle to Fun Bike Center, an authorized Kawasaki dealership on March 1, 2006, with complaints of rough idle and stalling. Initially, the dealer's mechanics found nothing wrong, but once the customer described the circumstances under which it occurred, they were able to duplicate an idle fluctuation.

The dealer commenced testing and diagnosis, and the motorcycle was in the shop for two and a half months. Eventually, the Kawasaki field representative determined that the idle fluctuation was a normal characteristic of the motorcycle and refused to pay for any further work on the motorcycle. Kawasaki denied that the motorcycle stalled.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the fluctuating idle caused the motorcycle to stall; this was a defect that affected the use, value and safety of the motorcycle, and thus the defendants violated the Song Beverly Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended there were no defects in the motorcycle; that fluctuating idle could only occur under unusual circumstances, and would not be experienced in the normal operation of the motorcycle. The motorcycle did not stall.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $38,900; the defendant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $1,000.

Damages

$9,200, plus civil penalty and attorney fees.

Result

Defense verdict.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

9-3

Length

five days


#120696

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390