Mark Armstrong v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., d/b/a Mazda North American Operations

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/02/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2071157 Mark Armstrong v. Mazda Motor o f America, I n c . , d/b/a Mazda North American Operations Mazda Motor o f America, I n c . , d/b/a Mazda North American Operations v. Mark Armstrong Appeals from C o f f e e C i r c u i t (CV-03-335) Court 2071157 MOORE, J u d g e . On December 3 1 , 2001, Mark A r m s t r o n g purchased Mazda P r o t e g e a u t o m o b i l e f r o m M i t c h e l l M o t o r s , an dealer o f Mazda p r o d u c t s . Limited Warranty" 2002 authorized A r m s t r o n g p a i d $18,806.97 f o r t h e v e h i c l e , w h i c h was c o v e r e d b y a "New V e h i c l e Mile a that 36-month/50,000 contained the f o l l o w i n g express warranty p r o v i s i o n : "Mazda [ N o r t h A m e r i c a n O p e r a t i o n s ] w a r r a n t s t h a t y o u r new Mazda V e h i c l e i s f r e e f r o m d e f e c t s i n m a t e r i a l or workmanship, s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g terms and c o n d i t i o n s . A Mazda D e a l e r w i l l make necessary repairs, using new or remanufactured parts, t o c o r r e c t any p r o b l e m c o v e r e d by this warranty w i t h o u t charge t o you." A f t e r d i s c o v e r i n g t h a t , on l o n g t r i p s i n h o t w e a t h e r , t h e a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g system i n t h e v e h i c l e sometimes blew h o t a i r or "fog," Armstrong r e t u r n e d the v e h i c l e t o M i t c h e l l Motors f o r r e p a i r s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s i n 2002 a n d 2003, d u r i n g t h e warranty period. Mitchell Motors In accordance attempted with to correct the express warranty, the a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o b l e m a t no c o s t t o A r m s t r o n g , b u t i t was u n a b l e t o do so t o Armstrong's On America, satisfaction. December Inc., 23, 2003, d/b/a Armstrong Mazda 2 North sued Mazda American Motor of Operations 2071157 ("Mazda"), asserting under Alabama the 2310(d)(1)(A), Trade claims of Commercial a p a r t of the Commission Act" o n l y the a jury trial Code of and express under "Magnuson-Moss (hereinafter Magnuson-Moss W a r r a n t y A c t " ) . At breach U.S.C. § Warranty-Federal referred to as "the 1 i n December f o l l o w i n g testimony 15 warranty 2007, A r m s t r o n g on t h e What's y o u r vehicle]? "A: My o p i n i o n i s t h a t i t was w o r t h t h e amount o f money I p a i d f o r i t a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e a i r c o n d i t i o n e r was w o r k i n g . And I w o u l d n ' t g i v e you a n y t h i n g f o r a c a r t h a t was b r a n d new f o r an a i r c o n d i t i o n e r t h a t d i d n ' t work. "Q: Are "A: I'm s a y i n g t h a t w i t h an new a u t o m o b i l e w i t h an d o e s n ' t work, t h a t i t has me since I purchased i s u p p o s e d t o be working." s a y i n g the [as i s s u e o f damages: "Q. you opinion presented to c a r has the no value of the value? automobile with a a i r conditioner that l i t t l e t o no v a l u e t o t w i t h one that was A r m s t r o n g a d m i t t e d l y had no o u t - o f - p o c k e t e x p e n s e s and he n o t s e e k t o r e c o v e r c o n s e q u e n t i a l damages, w h i c h were did excluded Armstrong a l s o a s s e r t e d c l a i m s of breach of i m p l i e d warranty, negligence, misrepresentation, revocation of a c c e p t a n c e , and a v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, § 8-20A-1 e t s e q . , known as t h e "Alabama M o t o r V e h i c l e Lemon Law Rights Act." The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w as t o t h o s e c l a i m s . A r m s t r o n g does n o t a p p e a l t h a t j u d g m e n t . 1 3 2071157 f r o m c o v e r a g e by t h e t e r m s o f t h e e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y . also testified that he had paid finance Armstrong charges totaling $2,500 i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s p u r c h a s e o f t h e Mazda v e h i c l e . On December 5, 2007, t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f A r m s t r o n g a w a r d i n g h i m $2,500 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. The trial and court entered a allowed Armstrong Armstrong recover then 2310(d)(2). Armstrong Mazda a motion, fees and a total 2008, t h e t r i a l verdict, as costs, jury's verdict of a t t o r n e y the p r e v a i l i n g pursuant to fees. party, 15 U.S.C. to § o f $3,780.22 as c o s t s . On August e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on the jury's court awarding Armstrong $2,500 filed the I n h i s m o t i o n , he s o u g h t a t o t a l o f $35,508.75 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and 11, on 30 d a y s t o s e e k an award filed attorney judgment $2,500 i n damages, and i n attorney a postjudgment f e e s and motion $2,847.94 seeking a m a t t e r of law o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , a new awarding in costs. judgment trial; the as a trial court denied that motion. Armstrong that the t r i a l timely appealed. c o u r t exceeded a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . that the t r i a l court On appeal, Armstrong argues i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s award of Mazda c r o s s - a p p e a l e d . Mazda a r g u e s erred i n denying i t s motion 4 for a new 2071157 trial. new Specifically, Mazda a r g u e s t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t r i a l because, i t says, the evidence award of damages to Armstrong. r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s , we Under correct, court's Alabama and this d e n i a l of address law, the disposes of a l l the a motion verdicts f o r a new trial. n o t be i s ' p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y ' w r o n g . " ' " Steen, 871 So. 2d 771, A l a b a m a Gas C o r p . , 568 773 t u r n D a v i s v. U l i n , 545 So. 2d 14, 734 15 of issues presumed the trial Therefore, reversed a unless P e t t y - F i t z m a u r i c e v. ( A l a . 2003) So. 2d 731, by the first. are i s strengthened j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t w i l l it resolution the c r o s s - a p p e a l "'"[j]ury presumption does not s u p p o r t Because Mazda's c r o s s - a p p e a l p o t e n t i a l l y to a (quoting Tanksley v. ( A l a . 1990), q u o t i n g i n ( A l a . 1989)) . A jury i s v e s t e d w i t h a l a r g e measure o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g damages and a judgment entered reversed "unless the evidence. 659, 661 the jury on a jury's verdict not be ... t h e v e r d i c t i s w h o l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t " w i t h S t i n s o n v. ( A l a . 1980). verdict Acme P r o p a n e Gas cannot proceedings Co., B a s e d on t h a t s t a n d a r d , be justified h y p o t h e s i s p r e s e n t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , upon p r o p e r should upon 391 So. "'[w]here, any 2d ... reasonable i t o u g h t t o be s e t a s i d e as b e i n g t h e r e s u l t o f compromise o r 5 2071157 mistake.'" 2001) ( q u o t i n g Donavan v. F a n d r i c h , 265 A l a . 439, 440, 92 So. 2d 1, 2 949 F e r g u s o n v. C a d l e Co., 816 So. 2d 473, 476 ( A l a . ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) ; see a l s o P a r s o n s v. A a r o n , ( A l a . 2002) ("[D]amages may n o t be a w a r d e d where t h e y a r e remote o r s p e c u l a t i v e . for 849 So. 2d 932, A j u r y must have some r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s t h e amount o f i t s a w a r d . " ) ; and S y s t r e n d s , I n c . v. Group 8760, LLC, 959 So. 2d 1052, 1079 ( A l a . 2006) (concluding that the trial court e r r e d i n denying the defendant's motion f o r a new trial b e c a u s e t h e r e was the jury could have no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s quantified the p l a i n t i f f ' s from which damages i n monetary t e r m s ) . With 714(2), certain exceptions A l a . Code 1975, not provides applicable that here, "[t]he § 7-2- measure of damages f o r b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e t i m e and place of acceptance between the value of the goods a c c e p t e d and t h e v a l u e t h e y w o u l d have h a d i f t h e y h a d been as warranted." of damages The t r i a l and instruction. instruction damages neither Thus, to c o u r t c h a r g e d t h e j u r y on t h a t measure the f o r breach party the raised jury was evidence any objection obligated i n determining of express 6 warranty. to that to apply this i t s award See Chandler of v. 2071157 Virciglio, the 997 So. 2d 304, 308 well-recognized ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) principle that (stating unchallenged jury i n s t r u c t i o n s , e v e n where e r r o n e o u s , become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e and t h a t a j u r y i s bound t o f o l l o w such Armstrong presented evidence instructions). establishing the purchase p r i c e o f t h e v e h i c l e , $18,806.97, w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e d t h e v a l u e of the v e h i c l e at the time been as w a r r a n t e d . Inc. v. M y e r s , 1972) of acceptance See, e.g., 48 A l a . App. (recognizing that Thompson 350, 264 the i f the v e h i c l e Chrysler-Plymouth, So. 2d 893 purchase had price ( C i v . App. of personal p r o p e r t y i s a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h e v a l u e o f s u c h p r o p e r t y a t the time and p l a c e of purchase). v e h i c l e as a c c e p t e d , system, Armstrong As f o r the value i . e . , w i t h t h e damaged presented only of the air-conditioning h i s testimony that the v e h i c l e was w o r t h l e s s t o h i m i n t h a t c o n d i t i o n . See, e.g., H a r l a n v. S m i t h , 1986) 507 purchaser-occupant's home c o n s t i t u t e d value of that So. 2d 943 o p i n i o n as t o t h e v a l u e sufficient mobile ( A l a . C i v . App. legal home). evidence Thus, of h i s mobile to establish i f the (the jury the accepted A r m s t r o n g ' s t e s t i m o n y , i t s h o u l d have a w a r d e d h i m $18,806.97, not $2,500. 7 2071157 On the other hand, i f the jury rejected Armstrong's t e s t i m o n y , i t w o u l d have h a d no b a s i s f o r a w a r d i n g h i m $2,500. The only mention charges i n c u r r e d of that figure by A r m s t r o n g pertained over the l i f e contract. However, t h e amount o f f i n a n c e relate the to w a r r a n t e d and the charges based Armstrong i t s verdict paid. (2006), a under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , from a d e a l e r 222 Ill. and 2d a t 79, Thus, basis. I n R a z o r v. H y u n d a i 607 value m e a s u r e o f damages. without evidentiary N.E.2d i n the the finance of h i s purchase changes of the does vehicle not as i t s v a l u e at the time of acceptance, which i s applicable legitimately difference to jury could on the amount the verdict n o t have of finance appears to be 2 Motor case The we America, find 222 Ill. 2d 75, p e r s u a s i v e on the 854 issue R a z o r p u r c h a s e d a new H y u n d a i a u t o m o b i l e received 854 a new c a r w a r r a n t y from N.E.2d a t 611. Shortly Hyundai. thereafter, R a z o r b e g a n c o m p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e w o u l d n o t s t a r t on A r m s t r o n g a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u r y h e a r d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e v e h i c l e , t h e c u r r e n t m i l e a g e and age o f the vehicle, the "contract," and the bill of sale. C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h o s e i t e m s , h o w e v e r , o f f e r e d no a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e j u r y i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e v e h i c l e as accepted. 2 8 2071157 occasion. the 222 I l l . 2d a t 79-80, 854 N.E.2d a t 611-12. d e a l e r was unable to repair the automobile to When Razor's s a t i s f a c t i o n , Razor sued Hyundai, a s s e r t i n g b r e a c h - o f - w a r r a n t y c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o t h e Magnuson-Moss W a r r a n t y A c t and p u r s u a n t to Illinois's N.E.2d a t opinion result the as of the trial to the the automobile problems used c o u r t would decrease I l l . 2d "proven at 80-81, 854 as i t w e r e . " 222 222 to give value she was still 2d a t 82, 854 N.E.2d a t 613. as a only allowed to opine that the that and I that have has for a I l l . 2d a t 82, at her 854 that I l l . 2d "given the with this had had, that's new car with used 854 N.E.2d a t 612¬ R a z o r o f f e r e d no o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f damages. of the t r i a l , automobile; 81-82, pay the automobile's the v e h i c l e not for a l l o w Razor unreliable" vehicle I would not i n the R a z o r was this price defects. or the problems car. problems 13. had that purchase alleged N.E.2d a t 612-13. vehicle 222 R a z o r p r e s e n t e d a copy o f h e r p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t established however, Code. 612. At t r i a l , and Commercial like a At the time d r i v i n g the automobile. 222 I l l . The j u r y a w a r d e d R a z o r $5,000 on her breach-of-warranty c l a i m f o r the d i m i n i s h e d value of the 9 2071157 automobile. 222 I l l . 2d a t 83, 854 N.E.2d a t 613. appealed, arguing, insufficient among o t h e r t o support breach-of-warranty claim. Hyundai t h i n g s , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was the jury's a w a r d o f damages on t h e 222 I l l . 2d a t 84, 854 N.E.2d a t 614. On a p p e a l , verdict, t h e I l l i n o i s Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d concluding that the j u r y had heard the jury's insufficient e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e o f damages: " I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e was no s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r t h e j u r y ' s $5,000 a w a r d . T h e r e was no d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d on t h e damages q u e s t i o n , n o r was there expert testimony. The o n l y p o s s i b l e e v i d e n c e of how much t h e v e h i c l e ' s v a l u e decreased i s plaintiff's testimony, and plaintiff's only t e s t i m o n y w h i c h t o u c h e s on t h e s u b j e c t was t h a t she w o u l d n o t t o d a y p a y t h e p r i c e she h a d o r i g i n a l l y p a i d f o r the v e h i c l e , because 'given the problems t h a t t h i s v e h i c l e -- t h a t I have h a d w i t h this v e h i c l e o r t h e problems t h e v e h i c l e has had, t h a t ' s l i k e a used car. I w o u l d n o t p a y t h a t f o r a new c a r w i t h u s e d p r o b l e m s a s i t w e r e . ' T h e r e i s s i m p l y no way f o r t h e j u r y t o g e t f r o m t h i s t e s t i m o n y t o a $5,000 a w a r d w i t h o u t e n g a g i n g i n s p e c u l a t i o n a n d conjecture. ' " [ I ] n p r o v i n g damages, t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e s t a b l i s h a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r c o m p u t i n g damages."' S n e l s o n v. Kamm, 204 I l l . 2d 1, 33, 272 I l l . Dec. 610, 787 N.E.2d 796 (2003), q u o t i n g G i l l v. F o s t e r , 157 I l l . 2d 304, 313, 193 I l l . Dec. 157, 626 N.E.2d 190 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . I n t h i s c a s e , p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o do s o . " P l a i n t i f f n o t e s t h a t t h e p r i c e o f t h e c a r was a l s o e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e and s u g g e s t s t h a t j u r o r s have s u f f i c i e n t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h c a r s a n d b r e a k d o w n s 10 2071157 t h a t t h e y o u g h t t o be p e r m i t t e d t o d e t e r m i n e f o r themselves how much a car's value would be d i m i n i s h e d by e v e n t s o f t h e type which o c c u r r e d i n t h i s case. P l a i n t i f f c i t e s a number o f c a s e s w h i c h s u g g e s t t h a t damages may be p r o v e n i n a n y manner which i s ' r e a s o n a b l e , ' and a l s o n o t e s t h a t o u r a p p e l l a t e c o u r t has h e l d t h a t '[w]here t h e r i g h t o f recovery exists the defendant cannot escape liability because t h e damages a r e d i f f i c u l t t o prove.' B u r r u s v . I t e k C o r p . , 46 I l l . App. 3d 350, 357, 4 I l l . Dec. 793, 360 N.E.2d 1168 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . "We a g r e e t h a t damages may be p r o v e n i n a n y r e a s o n a b l e manner, a s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n o f l a w ... b u t t h i s b e g s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r damages were p r o v e n i n a r e a s o n a b l e manner i n t h i s c a s e . The a n s w e r i s c l e a r l y no. Although jurors are not required t o check their common sense at the c o u r t r o o m d o o r ... , we a r e n o t p r e p a r e d t o e n d o r s e the proposition that jurors a r e as a class s u f f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h a u t o m o b i l e s a s t o be a b l e to determine t h e degree of diminution of a p a r t i c u l a r v e h i c l e ' s v a l u e b a s e d on a p a r t i c u l a r d e f e c t w i t h o u t t h e need f o r any e v i d e n c e a t a l l . T h i s i s more t h a n a m a t t e r o f s i m p l e common s e n s e . P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d , i n essence, t h a t ' I t wasn't w o r t h what I p a i d f o r i t . ' T h e r e was no number p r e s e n t e d , n o t h i n g f o r t h e j u r y t o work f r o m . "... [ A ] s s u m i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r e d some damage, t h e r e must be some b a s i s f o r a j u r y ' s damage award, a n d we c a n s e e no p r o c e s s o t h e r than s p e c u l a t i o n by w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d have t r a n s l a t e d t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y p l a i n t i f f t o an a w a r d o f $5, 000. We n o t e t h a t e v e n i n B u r r u s , i t s e l f a [Uniform Commercial Code] case i n which a d i s s a t i s f i e d b u y e r was a t t e m p t i n g t o r e c o v e r f o r t h e value of defective goods, the record included ' t e s t i m o n y ' as t o 'the a c t u a l v a l u e o f t h e d e f e c t i v e [goods] a t t i m e o f a c c e p t a n c e . ' B u r r u s , 46 I l l . App. 3d a t 357, 4 I l l . Dec. 793, 360 N.E.2d 1168. In t h i s case, by c o n t r a s t , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g , t r u l y 11 2071157 not a scintilla of evidence to support any p a r t i c u l a r v e r d i c t a t w h i c h t h e j u r y m i g h t have a r r i v e d -- much l e s s t h e s u s p i c i o u s l y r o u n d number of Razor, $5,000." 222 I l l . 2d a t 107-09, 854 N.E.2d a t 626-27. Because t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t c o u l d n o t be s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e Illinois Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on v e r d i c t and remanded t h e c a u s e a t 110, 854 N.E.2d a t f o r a new trial. 222 that I l l . 2d 628. Although the q u a l i t y of the evidence p r o v i d e d to the j u r y in this Razor c a s e was slightly higher than c a s e , t h e r e s u l t i s t h e same. that p r o v i d e d i n the In t h i s case, the r e c e i v e d no e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h i t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d at the time of acceptance, jury that, as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e c t i v e a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g s y s t e m , t h e v e h i c l e was w o r t h $2,500 l e s s t h a n as warranted. Consequently, damages must have r e s u l t e d conjecture. is the jury's from compromise, of $2,500 in speculation, or B e c a u s e t h e j u r y ' s a w a r d o f damages i n t h i s unsupported by t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by trial court erred i n d e n y i n g Mazda's m o t i o n Fitzmaurice award i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y v. Steen, 871 So. 12 wrong and t h e t r i a l f o r a new 2d at trial. 773. We, See case the court Petty- therefore, 2071157 r e v e r s e t h e judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r a new t r i a l . Because t h e new t r i a l may y i e l d different r e s u l t s and a f f e c t t h e award o f c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by Armstrong a r e n o t r i p e f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n and we t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s h i s a p p e a l ; h o w e v e r , we do n o t i n t e n d for as and a n y l a n g u a g e i n t h i s o p i n i o n t o be c o n s t r u e d commenting on e i t h e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e a w a r d o f c o s t s the p r o p r i e t y correctness i n a n y manner o f t h e award o f t h e amounts of those of attorney fees or the awards. APPEAL -- DISMISSED. CROSS-APPEAL Thompson, REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 13 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.