Gallagher v. Mercedes-Benz
Plaintiffs and appellants Maryann Gallagher and Blake Brown bought a new Mercedes-Benz ML430. Defendant and respondent Mercedes-Benz USA (Mercedes-Benz ) distributes the ML430. Plaintiffs car experienced, among other things, a series of stalling episodes. After some or all of those episodes, defendant and respondent Calabasas Motorcars, Inc. (Calabasas), serviced plaintiffs car. Based on a claim their ML430 is defective, plaintiffs demanded a refund under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act). When defendants refused, plaintiffs sued Mercedes-Benz and Calabasas for a violation of the act and for fraud. The trial court directed a verdict in defendants favor on the fraud claims, and the jury found in defendants favor on the claim under the act. With respect to their claims under the act, plaintiffs primary contention concerns the admission of evidence that they bought a service contract, rather than an extended warranty, after the cars original warranty expired. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting that evidence and by failing to instruct the jury that defendant had the burden of proving the existence of the service contract. Additionally, they contend that the court erred in excluding evidence of other consumer complaints about the ML430. We hold that no error occurred, and Court therefore affirm the judgment on the claims brought under the act.
Comments on Gallagher v. Mercedes-Benz