General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel, 48S05-9305-CV-518
| Decision Date | 11 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 48S05-9305-CV-518,48S05-9305-CV-518 |
| Citation | 613 N.E.2d 30 |
| Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Dorothy W. ZIRKEL and Jack R. Zirkel, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
The appellees brought an action against appellant for damages under Ind.Code Sec. 24-5-13-1 et seq., commonly known as the Indiana "Lemon Law." In 1988, appellees purchased a new Cadillac Seville from Ed Martin Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc., an authorized General Motors dealer. From the date of purchase, August 22, 1988, through February of 1989, the Zirkels returned the car to Ed Martin at least twenty times because of their dissatisfaction with the brakes.
Invoices show that the brakes were repaired on September 23, 1988 and on October 12, 1988. Each time, the Zirkels complained that the brakes were "pulsating" to a stop. The mechanics at Ed Martin diagnosed the problem as excessive wear due perhaps to the driver "riding" the brake. On both of these occasions, the brake rotors were refaced and the brake pads were scuffed. In February of 1989, the car was involved in an accident. Following the repair of the body damage to the car, the brakes again were overhauled, although mechanic Fred Martin claimed they were working all right. However, the overhaul was done to satisfy the appellees.
While the car was in the shop for repairs in February of 1989, Ed Martin loaned the Zirkels a 1989 Cadillac which the Zirkels drove to Florida for a vacation. They had no complaint as to the brakes on the loaned car.
The trial court found that the "vehicle nonconformity involved failure of the braking system." The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and found that the appellees did not sustain their burden of establishing a defect in the automobile.
The majority opinion, General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel (1992), Ind.App., 602 N.E.2d 1069, pointed out that the only experts to testify were those employed by Ed Martin, whereas the appellees' only evidence consisted of Mrs. Zirkel's testimony that the brakes at times felt soft and at other times the pedal would not bring the car to a stop.
Judge Rucker wrote a dissenting opinion in which he points out that the trial court had before it conflicting testimony coming from opposite sides in the case. The Zirkels claimed the brakes were not adequate while Ed Martin's mechanics claimed that although they did effect repairs on the braking system on three separate occasions, they never found the brakes to be inadequate to stop the car.
As Judge Rucker...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gliottone v. Ford Motor Co.
...purchaser of the automobile to present expert testimony as to the failure of the automobile to perform properly." General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel, 613 N.E.2d 30, 31 (Ind. 1993).This is a paradigm case. At most, three weeks after Gliottone purchased the vehicle, which had at most 1,461 miles ......
-
Metro Health Professionals v. Chrysler
...purchaser of the automobile to present expert testimony as to the failure of the automobile to perform properly." Gen. Motors Corp. v. Zirkel, 613 N.E.2d 30, 31 (Ind.1993), clarified on reh'g, 617 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1993). Accordingly, we do not find Zitterbart instructive. Moreover, to the ex......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel
...automobile and the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the trial court. As pointed out in our original opinion, General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel (1993), Ind., 613 N.E.2d 30, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of any defect in the automobile and the amount of damages resulting to......