Jury Awards $185,000 for Lemon Viper

if its legit then great stick it to em
heck its a Dodge, so it may be

but, more likely this fools was doing burn outs and whole shots every chance he got and broke it himself. We'll see how his Vette holds up

 

Wonder how many sets of rear tires they went through.... HHHMMMMM

 

BS

 

Stupid jury. These men were due a new Viper and legal costs...nothing else. Where do they reason that they were due TWICE what they paid for the car?

Unbeleivable...Let see, I buy a car, torture the clutch ripping it from 0-100-0 in 12 seconds and break a differential...Dodge fixes this problem, I continue to flog the car running it down drag strips at 122 mph until the differential breaks again and Dodge fixes it again...I continue to pummell the car by power shifting from 1st to second at about 50 mph and break the differential again 4 more times. When I bring the car in for its 6th differential Dodge cuts me off. How can this be my fault? Give me 185,000 dollars!

I can buy that one or maybe 2 differentials were garbage and then maybe 2 others were sub par...but eventually (just by laws of average) you are going to get one that was made correctly. I can't believe that incompetent owners are subsidized by the courts!!!

 

Whats the top speed in 1st gear? I would think that 50 mph is getting it pretty wound up before getting into 2nd. Doesn't seem like normal driving to me.

Secondly it seems like the only problem was the diff, as continued abuse of it. The rest of the car was not a lemon. If one part continues to fail (6 times!) I would think it's more of a useage problem on the owners part. It's like burning the tread off the tires and then saying they are defective...

Total BS if you ask me. Another step on the downslope of American morality.

 

Stock viper will get right near 60mph in 1st gear so 50 isn't pushing it that hard. I agree the stock diffs are crap but I smell something fishy here. I get the impression there was a little laughing gas involved, or in the very least some sticky tires. In reality he should have sacked up after the 2nd one broke and droped a quaife in it.

 

Guy should've spilled hot coffee in his lap on the 1-2 and gone after McDonald's.

 

50 mph is about 95% of the usable RPM in first. I will say that the diffs in the SRT's are prone to failure and people who replace the Dana unit with a Quaife have had not only much better reliability but also much better performance. The Dana will spin the inside rear wheel in the tighter stuff; the Quaife just sticks and sticks.

While this is probably a case of owner abuse, after all of the diff failures on stock SRT's, it's good to see Dodge finally eat a little sh*t for it.

 

Not stupid jury...It is the law. Under the Lemon Law, the plaintiffs got what they were entitled to. It is the LAW. The judge or jury simply applied the law to the facts of this particular case. The purpose of the double award is to deter companies from screwing consumers. Plain and simple.

 

Diffs are a major weak point in the SRT's. I used to flog my GTS on the drag strip twice a week for 2 years and I never had any problems with the car at all. IMO running 0-100 hard should be no problem for a clutch, and quick shifting 1-2 should be no problem, and hard standing starts should be no problem.

IMO some other exotic cars are downright atrocious in how they handle hard driving. Who wants a sports car that can't take off from a light hard without fear of breakage? Are these high end cars meant to be driven gently amongst other "enthusiasts" with string backed dork gloves on?

Sorry, a sports car should be able to do the "sport" thing without dropping its guts on the floor. Yes, 6 is excessive - the guy obviously wanted Dodge to either fix the problem continuously or fix the root cause. Dodge couldn't or wouldn't, so I'm sure this guy thought "Ok, fine, I will let you keep replacing diffs when they break". DC tried to get out of their warranty commitment, guy didn't take it lying down, DC gets owned in court. Hard to feel too bad for 'em. Would be a good thing if owners of "other marques" would release their nut-swining grip for a moment and demand similar levels of reliability and robustness from their car manufacturers.

 

Verdicts like this are why Evos come with hydraulically dampened clutches (to prevent sidestepping, drop clutch launches, etc.)...

Instead of showing an ounce of self-restraint, aholes like this ignorantly go through life encouraging the creation of a society where manufacturers are inclined to protect us all from ourselves.

I just have a hard time believing Dodge used a Dana diff that can't handle stock tires and a stock engine. They've been doing the musclecar thing for what, 50 years now...?

 

Here are some excerpts from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

a. The Act is effective July 4, 1975 and applies to goods manufactured after that date.
§312

b. The Act applies to all consumer products, defined as tangible personal property normally used for personal, family, or household purposes.
§ 301(1)

c. The Act applies to written warranties defined as either a written affirmation or promise that the material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or (2) a written undertaking to refund, repair, replace or otherwise remedy a product if it fails to meet specifications set forth. In either case it must be given by a supplier at no extra charge, to a buyer for purposes other than resale of the product. NOTE: Not all express warranties under the UCC are written warranties under the Act.
§ 301(6) (1)

d. The Act applies to implied warranties defined as an "implied warranty arising under State law in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product".
§ 301(7), § 310(d)

e. The Act applies to service contracts, defined as a written "contract to perform, over a fixed period of timeor for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance repair of a consumer product".
§ 301(8)

5. What Remedies Are Available?


a. Consumers can recover damages from the breach. This includes remedies already available under state law, such as recovery of the purchase price, market price of a replacement, loss in value due to the problem, recovery of other costs, and statutory penalties, if any. The Act is silent as to what rules or principles govern.
§ 310(d)(1)

b. "Other legal and equitable relief," which may include injunctive relief or specific performance, even if not available under state a law; e.g., replacement of the "lemon," or extension of the warranty duration.
§ 310(d)(1)

c. Costs and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing the suit; e.g., filing fees, witnesses' fees, stenographic costs.
§ 310(d)(2)

d. Attorney's fees reasonably incurred, based on actual time expended.
§ 310(d)(2)

Where does it say...consumer is due 2X what s/he paid?

 

re: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages may be included in the calculation of the jurisdictional amount only if punitive damages are recoverable in a breach of warranty action under the governing state law.

 

Well if this guy can get 185 for a, 80k car, I'd like to know why Ferrari has done nothing about my dad's 360 that's been into service probably 15 times (owned the car for about 20 months so far, and in fact it got back from the shop two weeks ago and left again for the dealership two days ago!)

 

All for the same malfunction? If it is, use this case as precedent and sue for millions.

 

Anyone know about MN state law on this issue. That is can the plaintiff sue for punitive damages under Magnuson?

 

An Evo will do a drop clutch launch, trust me... But also at the same time, Mitsu didnt have to do that with the Evo, as the clutch is a wear item and should not be covered undfer warranty.

This dick who sued DC probably never gave the car a break, and did burnouts, and drop clutch launches at stop lights, etc... From what he admitted in the story though, I think the DMV should suspend his license, as he admits going over 100 frequently on the freeway, and driving recklessly, he'd have it coming to him, it's called karma. Though it may very well have been an error of DC, he did have to be ****** and go sueing them, over what he knew was probably his driving habits. Also, I'm sure he didn't break it in properly...

 

Is it a clutch, or tires, or any fairly common wear item being replaced on his car? I know for a fact that Ferrari doesn't cover clutches, or any other common wear items.

 

Dude, it's not a fru-fru car. Sorry, Mike B. hit the nail on the head. The car is designed to be driven hard - burnouts and drop-clutch launches isn't "abuse" for a Viper, IMO.

Are you serious about having his license suspended, as well as the break-in assumption? What in the hell are you talking about?

 

If the car was not modified beyond stock then too bad so sad for Dodge. I had similar problems with my S2000, but Honda nutted up and replaced my clutch, multiple gearsets and other driveline components to avoid any lemon law or other action (which I didn't even have to threaten) after concluding that their sports car wasn't holding up under use. Did the manufacturer issue any warnings that future repairs wouldn't be honored? Did they document in writing that rapid acceleration exceeded the engineered capability of the vehicle and was unacceptable under the terms of the warranty? Unlikely...

 

If thats the only way the car is ever driven, I believe it is abuse. This guy also seems like the type of guy who doesnt even have the self-control to break a car in, even though that had nothing to do for the last 5 diffs... Also, i think he was probably stupid enough to power shift the car frequently. I know it isnt ground for the DMV to suspend his license, but maybe it will be one day, because *******s like that have no business endangering others on the road with thier reckless driving.

 

cha-ching!!!

gawd I pray several people do this to Ferrari, its about time for a truely reliable one

 

I don't see where he ever admitted to breaking the law or driving recklessly. Everyone knows there's no speed limit on on-ramps

 

just ask this guy about karma.
Image Unavailable, Please Login