My New Car Tried to Kill Me! Can I Return It?

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
08/22/2014 at 13:00 • Filed to: None

My client's truck tried to kill him the day he got it. Here's how it went down: he test drove it, negotiated a price and signed some papers. When he took delivery the next day, it was a little colder than it had been the day before. He pulled off the lot and headed down the road. As the engine warmed, he turned on the defroster and hit the fan. A split second later he felt a sharp pain in his eye. He pulled onto a side street and put the truck in park, realizing instantly that something sharp had just come from the defroster duct and poked him in the eye. It was still there. He called 911 on his cellphone and asked for an ambulance. While he waited he called the dealer and told them to come get their truck; he didn't want it anymore. He did not use the magic words but he was "revoking" his "acceptance" of "non-conforming goods".

Everyone has a vague notion defective products can be returned to the seller. But it is not always the case that you can do it so easily, especially with an automobile. The example above is good because it has egregious facts. But first, let's take a quick look at the law. Most of the states in the US have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code which governs the sale of goods. When a buyer accepts goods which turn out to be defective, he may have the right to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! if the goods are defective and the defect is such that it was not apparent at the time of delivery. Most states have adopted the language (below) verbatim. For our purposes, "nonconformity" = "defect".

The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose nonconformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it [ ] without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced [ ] by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance.

While this definition looks simple, there is a lot of nuance in there. What sort of nonconformity is necessary for you to revoke? The law says it must be one which substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. What is substantial? We could chase these definitions in circles all day (depends on what your definition of "is" is) but let's get back to my client by the side of the road.

What is the defect in his vehicle? It shoots shards of glass into the eyes of the driver as it is being used for its normal purpose. Did the defect substantially impair the value of the vehicle to him? I dunno. Ever try to drive while you have a shard of glass jabbed into your eyeball? I haven't but my client said it was an issue. I believed him.

I had another client who had the steering wheel fall off in his lap as he was driving along the freeway. Substantial? How about if your car was delivered with no spare tire? I kid you not - !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The law also requires that you revoke as soon as you discover (or should have discovered) the defect and before any substantial change in the goods occurs. In other words, stop using the goods and revoke quickly.

In the case of the truck, the dealer offered to clean the defroster ducts at no charge but refused to refund my client's money. No thanks. We filed suit. Notice that his was not !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . It hadn't been out of service enough days or enough times to qualify. This was a simple revocation case. We sued the dealer and also sued the manufacturer under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (in case the broken glass was the result of a manufacturer's defect) and something funny happened. The manufacturer and the dealer began fighting with each other.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

If your opponents want to fight amongst themselves, let them. I later found out what they were fighting about. The glass in my client's eye (which had been removed later that day at the hospital) was in the defroster duct because the driver's door window had been smashed as the truck was offloaded from a car hauler. Glass got all over the dash and some fell down the ducts. The dealer seemed to think the manufacturer was on the hook for that and the manufacturer thought the dealer should pay. I don't know exact details. I would have asked what role the car hauler played but the case didn't last long enough for me to volunteer that thought.

They took my client's deposition and heard him tell his story under oath. When he was done, the manufacturer's attorney told me the revocation would be honored and my client's purchase price would be refunded. I got the impression that they weren't done with the dealer yet but it wasn't my concern if those two wanted to keep fighting. My client had been made whole. And his eye was fine.

Some of you may recall !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! about how dealers can legally sell vehicles without disclosing their history of broken window glass and other things. The Michigan version of that law was passed AFTER I handled this case.It wouldn't have prevented the result in this case (the law says you cannot revoke simply because of undisclosed damage and repair). I merely point it since these stories all seem to tie-in with one another.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

So, if you buy a product that is massively defective and you find that out after you take delivery, you may be able to return it. Depends on how defective it is and how quickly you return it. Many sellers won't just agree to the return however so I strongly urge you to consult with an attorney in your state before doing this on a big ticket item. And here's a little hint: Many attorneys will talk to potential clients for a free initial consultation and you can run this by them for free. It's usually a straight forward question. I know I answer this one all the time for people I've never met before. If it ends up being litigated, that's another matter altogether. Cross that bridge when you get to it, if you're not by the side of the road with a piece of glass stuck in your eye.

Steve Lehto has been practicing consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for 23 years in Michigan. He taught Consumer Protection at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law for ten years and wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He also wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! both published by Chicago Review Press. Follow him on Twitter before your friends do. Twitter : !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (96)

thebigbossyboss > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:07

"Many attorneys will talk to potential clients for a free initial consultation and you can run this by them for free."....in Ontario it is actually obligated by law that lawyers give you a 30 minute consultation. I believe you don't get to pick the lawyer though.

"When you call the LSRS, we will provide you with the name of a lawyer or licensed paralegal who will provide a free consultation of up to 30 minutes to help you determine your rights and options. "

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/faq.aspx?id=21…

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:07

And the truck went back on the lot and was sold unchanged to the next guy that wanted it.

SteveLehto > thebigbossyboss
08/22/2014 at 13:09

In the US most attorneys will do that as a service. Many Bar associations will also refer you to someone who will consult with you on a particular topic. That is handy if you want to speak to a specialist but don't know where to start.

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:10

Of course it did. They may have even gotten all of the glass out of the ducts before they sold it!

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:11

1. Turn on truck

2. Crank defroster to max setting for 5 minutes.

3. ????

4. Profit.

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:13

1.5 Put on Eye Protection.

thebigbossyboss > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:14

I think step 3 is vacuum up all the glass shards that came out.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:17

My face is ready!

Kinja'd!!!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:18

I see some exposed neck. You and I both know that a single shard in just that spot will take you out.

(Then they haul out your cadaver, hose down the seats and sell it as new.)

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:21

Kinja'd!!!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:22

Kevlar?

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:28

Kinja'd!!!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:29

Prepare to engage the defroster!

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 13:31

What are you preparing? You're always preparing! Just go!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:32

Oh my God! Your hands are bare! Prepare to be de-gloved!

Imirrelephant > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 13:45

Buckle this! Ludicrous speed... GO!

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:03

I can't work the hvac with my mittens on!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:05

Can we train dolphins to turn the defrosters on? How about a remote controlled robot?

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:11

Kinja'd!!!

SET TO MAX AC!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:13

I still want a 20-minute head start to get out of town, just in case this gets ugly.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:14

It's too late for that I'm going in.

webmonkees > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:15

Were they questioning the origins of the glass shard up to the point of knowing "the full service history" of the truck?

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:17

I will tell others of your bravery - if I survive, that is.

SteveLehto > webmonkees
08/22/2014 at 14:17

No. They were just pointing their fingers at each other.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:19

Please ... don't let me die with my boots on.

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:21

I doubt we'll be able to find your boots after that defroster gets fired up.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:21

Just promise me! We don't have time to argue semantics!

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:24

You're still alive? You must not have begun the process yet. I fear you are getting cold feet (although I don't blame you). We may have to just have the truck crushed and sent to a landfill before it kills again.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:25

*dies in shower of broken glass*

SteveLehto > CalzoneGolem
08/22/2014 at 14:28

The death was not in vain. We will teach our children of this near tragedy. (Your death kept the truck from re-entering the stream of commerce without having the ducts cleaned.)

webmonkees > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:34

At least some logic there, I had wondered, thanks. Everything else calls for knowing their side of the table. :)

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto
08/22/2014 at 14:38

*ascends to heaven*

My job here is done!

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 11:56

LMFAO

miataisalwaystheanswer > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 11:57

You guys just made my Monday morning.

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 11:57

Kinja'd!!!

CalzoneGolem > MFEJAL grey because who knows...
08/25/2014 at 11:58

It's ok to feel!

Jimmy Joe Meeker > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:01

Once a side window is broken glass will be appearing in the car for the life of the car. Doesn't matter how many times you clean, disassemble the interior and clean out the new findings.... there will always be more. 20 years later glass will still turn up somewhere in the car. It will approach zero but never reach it. Somehow I think even complete dis-assembly down to a shell and total restoration won't be enough to get it all, but it might.... until that day you notice this weird hunk of something in wedged in gap and painted over.... only to pry it out and find it's glass.

ME 4-12 > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:02

"So, if you buy a product that is massively defective and you find that out after you take delivery, you may be able to return it. Depends on how defective it is and how quickly you return it."

Now this is only the case on new vehicles correct?

StevenG > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:04

Did they at least pay his insurance copays? I would think simply buying the car back would not be enough. Since he would be out of pocket at least the copays and possible lifelong injury, depending on exactly what happened with the glass in his eye.

DMAG > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:05

So there's a picture of a truck hauling Jeeps. Was the vehicle in question a Jeep?

Turbolence1988 Loves Magic Turn Circles > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 12:07

You and Steve have won the Internet today. Holy shit.

Edit - Er, Friday. You won the Internet on Friday. Stupid dates.

Ash78, voting early and often > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:08

I think this was a fair resolution, but the course of action was based on the freakish coincidence that the glass hit his eye. Had it hit his cheek, the whole thing might have been an apology, duct cleaning, and a handshake. The number of consumer products that are a hair's breadth from killing us each day is stunning.

CalzoneGolem > Turbolence1988 Loves Magic Turn Circles
08/25/2014 at 12:11

Haha yeah the article went up in Oppo on Friday.

beepbeepbeep > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:11

Not everyone can afford the services of an attorney so here is what I wonder and what I surmise I would do under the circumstances. What did it cost the client to represent him in this case? Offset that with just the hassle factor of doing so. I think some people lose objectivity in cases like this. Is it more important to just get the car fixed and get back on the road or does the client unrealistically want to make the dealer pay out the nose. I think a negotiated settlement would of been better. Fix the car, pay for loss of time and medical expenses and any long term losses due to vision problems and throw in a 100,000 mile maintenance plan as a kicker. Do I ask for too much?

I Started Something > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 12:12

Not a vehicle, but I had that happen with a Best Buy open box purchase of a blu-ray player. When I retured I told them "Oh, you might want to take the receipt out of the box showing that the last guy returned this because it would not play discs. EXACT SAME ISSUE THAT I AM HAVING!" I have zero doubt that some poor sucker is now the 3rd person to purchase that blu-ray player and returned it for the same reason.

StevenG > Ash78, voting early and often
08/25/2014 at 12:13

Personally I don't agree.
A car that has glass shards now in it forever, trust me you are never getting it all out, should not be sold for the same price as one that does not.

OriginalWheelman > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:14

This is a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. The only one who won here was the lawyers. That truck needed cleaned, the dealer offered to do it. Simple as that. Used cars are USED. Shocking.

SteveLehto > Jimmy Joe Meeker
08/25/2014 at 12:15

I agree. And there are always the pieces that will be inside the door. Shake that door just right and you can hear them.

SteveLehto > ME 4-12
08/25/2014 at 12:15

Notice that I said "Product" here. But it would most likely have to be new. Check a local attorney (As this may vary from state to state.)

SteveLehto > StevenG
08/25/2014 at 12:17

His eye was fine (albeit a bit uncomfortable during the ordeal). Not sure about the co-pay or if he even had one. I seem to recall he had really good health insurance.

SteveLehto > DMAG
08/25/2014 at 12:18

No. That photo is for illustration purposes only. The make of the vehicle in the story (Ford) is irrelevant which is why I did not not mention it. But, I know what curiosity does to cats and others.

SteveLehto > beepbeepbeep
08/25/2014 at 12:19

The manufacturer paid my legal fees. You probably could have gotten the car fixed and taken it back but then you will wince every time you turn on that defroster . . . .

DeeVeeOus > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:20

If the defect, whether it be glass in the eye or steering wheel in your lap, caused you to get in an accident would you go about things differently?

SteveLehto > OriginalWheelman
08/25/2014 at 12:20

IT WAS A NEW TRUCK. (Still shocking?)

Speedmerchant > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:20

Funny I had a customer just now contact me wanting to bring her car back (she's had it for 4 years) because she was in an accident and it ruined the cars aura so she didn't want it anymore....

SteveLehto > DeeVeeOus
08/25/2014 at 12:22

Yes. That is the interesting thing about these two cases - neither resulted in an accident with another vehicle (or even further damage to the subject vehicle). Also, if my client had been permanently injured it would have been a WHOLE different ball game.

SteveLehto > Speedmerchant
08/25/2014 at 12:23

Not the AURA! People get very emotional about the cars (I have noticed this over the years).

ED9man2 > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:42

Love these legal stories Steve, very interesting and informative!

Ark > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 12:43

There is really nothing wrong with the truck. Some busted glass fell into a vent. I don't see a legitimate reason to return the truck. Just clean it out and move on.

SteveLehto > ED9man2
08/25/2014 at 12:43

Thanks. And if you haven't already, follow me on twitter: @stevelehto (shameless plug, I know but it will make sure you see them all.)

TxFlOr > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:46

My car tried to kill me just yesterday. It has Lane Keep Assist and it veered over to the next lane with no warning while taking a long curve at about 55 mph (which was the normal speed for that road). Was in the lane just fine and then the wheel jerked to the right, sending me into the right lane. Luckily there were no cars around me and I had a good grip on the wheel, but I wonder what would've happened had it pushed me into another car. Would the insurance company even believe it? Does the black box record those details?

CalzoneGolem > Ark
08/25/2014 at 12:47

You obviously need to read the rest of this thread. This truck killed me!

ME 4-12 > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:48

I originally typed Product instead of Vehicle, but decided to change it since there aren't many other things that are expensive enough for the general population to what to go through the trouble of legal means to get their money back.

But the main point of my question was if it was new vs used, not necessarily vehicles vs all products.

Logan Coffill > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:50

If Your New Car 'Tries To Kill You,' Can You Return It?

I would say no. If this was the case, Dodge would be returning every single Hellcat they ever sell!!!

SteveLehto > Logan Coffill
08/25/2014 at 12:54

[RIM SHOT!] But attorneys call that "assumption of the risk," since buyers ought to know what they are getting themselves into.

Chris11LE > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 12:55

"Steal all the underwear" should be in there somewhere

Chris11LE > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 12:55

What's wrong, Colonel Sanders....CHICKEN!!!???

TheCaptainVideo > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 12:57

Funny, I ran into an issue this weekend with my new vehicle. Bought a new Ford Explorer, and not after 48 hours of having it the caliper popped off the driver-side front rotor, leaked brake fluid and I almost got into an accident. It damaged the caliper, front rim and the plastic skirt of the vehicle. It's in the dealers hands now.

CalzoneGolem > Chris11LE
08/25/2014 at 12:59

Exactly.

SteveLehto > TheCaptainVideo
08/25/2014 at 13:00

How bizarre. That's such an unusual occurrence (in a brand new vehicle!) that it makes you wonder if something is inherently wrong or what exactly broke?

SNL-LOL > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 13:02

"Of course it did. They may have even gotten all of the glass out of the ducts before they sold it!"

I admire your optimism.

TheCaptainVideo > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 13:03

Oh, I agree. The only thing I could think of is maybe when they were inspecting the car they took the caliper off of the rotor to check the brakes, and when they popped it back on it wasn't bolted all the way. Over the weekend it was making a thunk/rattle noise when I hit minor bumps, but got progressively worse. Then all of a sudden parts were flying out of the wheel well, and the brake pedal went to the floor.

Now the dealer has it, and I'm making sure they check EVERYTHING on that vehicle before I drive it back off the lot.

SteveLehto > SNL-LOL
08/25/2014 at 13:09

Some people say I am a dreamer.

throttlehappy527 > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 13:12

Party_in_the_USA > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 13:13

for a lawyer, you're pretty cool!

Please write more insights. This was quite informative

CalzoneGolem > throttlehappy527
08/25/2014 at 13:13

Brilliant!

SteveLehto > Party_in_the_USA
08/25/2014 at 13:15

Thanks. I'm glad people are enjoying them.

Tohru > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 13:21

Bulldozer incoming!

Kinja'd!!!

NO > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 13:49

this thread made me so happy

CalzoneGolem > NO
08/25/2014 at 13:53

It is good to know my death was not in vain.

NO > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 14:01

Worth it.

absurdum > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 14:17

So in this case is your client out the cost of attorney fees or is the losing party typically required to cover his costs?

SteveLehto > absurdum
08/25/2014 at 14:20

Defendants paid the attorney fee under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (which allows for their recovery in the case of a warranty action with a consumer product).

Carwood > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 14:31

Question.. If there is a known issue with a model, where there has been no direct fix from the manufacturer yet the issue is wide spread..how long should the window be to remedy the situation? Granted the thing still functions, its just a ridiculous problem to have to deal with.

I as because a ton of 2014 Grand Cherokees have been have transmission issues be it dramatic downshifts, upshifts too late etc yet there seems to be no absolute fix despite the transmission being released for quite some time.

avi24 > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 14:35

I'm not really sure why the dealership wouldn't just throw it off as a loss as opposed to refunding the customer's money AND putting it back on the lot. Or at least I hope they wouldn't do that. Something ethically wrong about that to me.

SteveLehto > Carwood
08/25/2014 at 14:36

People are always curious about the platform-wide problems (And there are several manufacturers right now putting out lousy transmissions). The real issue is: What is wrong with YOUR vehicle and how do the facts of YOUR case fit the law? (The other vehicles are legally irrelevant on one hand - although I agree with you that they illustrate that 1) the problem is real and 2) probably not fixable at the moment.) My advice to you - and any others in your situation - is to keep bringing it in for repairs, documenting it and then consulting a local attorney when you hit the threshold for your state's lemon law.

SteveLehto > avi24
08/25/2014 at 14:38

We never hear about the cases where the dealers acted reasonably because they are not newsworthy. I suspect that most dealers would have done the right thing. This particular dealer is one that is known to not be so good with the customer relations. I bet that if the dealer had handled this well, they could have gotten my client into another vehicle - instead, he took his refunded money elsewhere.

Prophet of hoon > CalzoneGolem
08/25/2014 at 18:02

right, but now as a used car - with a note on car fax about the car being damaged...

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto
08/25/2014 at 18:03

You really believe that this time they'd do the right thing? Okay counselor, I give up, upon what evidence do you base this allegation?

SteveLehto > Prophet of hoon
08/25/2014 at 18:17

How would Carfax find out?

SteveLehto > Prophet of hoon
08/25/2014 at 18:18

The Right Thing? I think they sold that vehicle five minutes after they were told they could by their attorney. (He would have told them to hang onto it in case it was evidence - not because it might blind the next owner.)

X-cchannel-M > SteveLehto
08/26/2014 at 10:51

Some say he used to drive naked until a piece of glass from the vent struck him in the eye. All we know is he's called....

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto
08/26/2014 at 15:26

and you know the difference between those bits (pun) of advice is in the first case, the lawyer could get sanctioned, in the second the lawyer would get more work.

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto
08/26/2014 at 15:27

two ways, 1) the glass company notifies Car Fax, or 2) the former owner calls car fax to report a problem with their former car.... and if you think there's a path ripe with potential for abuse, you'd be right. It's also a path paved with billable hours, just sayin'

SteveLehto > Prophet of hoon
08/26/2014 at 16:47

Glass Company? I guarantee they'd fix this in house. Attorneys who defend clients like this one know that the client is good for an endless amount of legal work. Just step back and let them do their thing.

Jalopnik_Sucks > SteveLehto
11/25/2019 at 16:42

Many cars don't come with spare tires these days. Go look in a Camaro. Unless you purchase the jack & spare as an option, it comes standard with a can of fix-a-flat. And it's not the only car like that in this day & age.