Opinion ID: 1187902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: burdens of proof under the magnuson-moss act

Text: There are two burdens to be analyzed in this case. According to Waldock, he must show the existence of an express warranty, that it was breached, that the breach proximately caused the loss, and that the product failed to perform in accordance with the warranty terms. If he establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Universal to prove owner abuse. Judge Shortell correctly noted that the language in the Magnuson-Moss Act relating to consumer abuse is a classic burden of proof statement. The relevant section of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2304(c) (1982) provides: The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section [requiring warrantor to remedy the consumer product in a reasonable time and without charge] shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance). (Emphasis added). The statute places the burden of proving owner abuse squarely on the warrantor. The crucial question, therefore, is precisely what Waldock had to show to establish a prima facie case and shift the burden to Universal under the Magnuson-Moss Act. [3]
Universal argues that the consumer bears the burden of proof in a breach of warranty case under Alaska's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and that the Magnuson-Moss Act was not intended to shift this burden. It further claims that the jury should have been instructed that Waldock had the burden of proving that the Universal breached its express warranty by selling Waldock a defective automobile. Waldock contends he met his burden as a matter of law, thus the jury instruction requiring Universal to prove consumer abuse by a preponderance of the evidence was not erroneous. The Magnuson-Moss Act created no new implied warranties upon which consumers can sue, rather it created a new federal cause of action for the breach of consumer warranties. Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales v. Wallace, 415 So.2d 1024 (Miss. 1982). An alleged breach of an express warranty can be the basis of two separate claims, one based on the state's UCC and one based on the federal act. The elements of proof are the same whether the claim is made under the [Magnuson-Moss] act or under state law. Wallace, 415 So.2d at 1026-27; see also Welch v. Fitzgerald-Hicks Dodge, Inc., 121 N.H. 358, 430 A.2d 144, 149 (1981). Thus to determine Waldock's burden of proof the UCC provisions should be examined, for if it is determined that Waldock established a prima facie case under the UCC, then he has also established a prima facie case under the Magnuson-Moss Act. Welch, 430 A.2d at 149. The parties agree that the BMW warranty in this case is an express warranty as defined in AS 45.02.313, [4] a section of the UCC as adopted in Alaska. AS 45.02.607(d) provides that [t]he burden is on the buyer to establish a breach with respect to the goods accepted. Some courts have held that consumers suing the dealer and manufacturer have a heavy burden of proof. In Arnold v. Ford Motor Co., 90 N.M. 549, 566 P.2d 98 (1977), the court held that Arnold had the burden of proving four essential elements in a UCC express warranty suit against the dealer and manufacturer: (1) the existence of a defect in the operation of the vehicle, (2) the defect resulted from factory materials or workmanship, (3) the plaintiff presented the vehicle to the automobile dealer with a request that the defect be repaired, and (4) the dealer failed or refused to repair the defective parts. Arnold, 566 P.2d at 99. The warranty in Arnold, like the warranty in most car cases, is a standard repair and replace warranty providing a remedy if any part is found to be defective in factory materials or workmanship within a specified time period. The dispute in Arnold focused on whether the consumer had presented sufficient evidence to establish the second element, i.e., the defect resulted from factory materials or workmanship. Although the trial court made no specific findings on the issue, the appellate court held that there was substantial testimony to support the fact that the defects had existed from the time Arnold drove the car from the lot. Arnold, 566 P.2d at 99-100. Likewise, the court in Walker Ford Sales v. Gaither, 265 Ark. 275, 578 S.W.2d 23, 25 (1979), held that the consumer's burden in an express repair and replace warranty case is to show that the defect existed at the time the car was first delivered to the consumer. In Gaither, a vibration existed from the date of purchase so the court had no trouble finding that this burden had been met. Id.; see also, Prutch v. Ford Motor Co., 618 P.2d 657, 660 (Colo. 1980) (consumer must establish that the defect arose in the course of manufacturer-distribution and before purchase); Royal Business Machines v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d 34, 44 (7th Cir.1980) (breach of express warranty occurs only if goods are defective upon delivery and not if goods later become defective through abuse or neglect); Collum v. Fred Tuch Buick, 6 Ill. App.3d 317, 285 N.E.2d 532, 536 (1972) (to recover on express warranty theory, consumer must prove that the alleged malfunctioning of the car was caused by a defect in parts or workmanship). [5] In cases such as these, courts have held that circumstantial evidence is enough to support the consumer's burden of proof that the damage was caused by a defect in factory materials or workmanship. See Colorado Serum Co. v. Arp, 504 P.2d 801, 805-06 (Wyo. 1972) (circumstantial evidence permitted to prove that proximate cause of illness of owner's swine herd was manufacturer's defective serum). The case before us now, however, is more difficult because Waldock experienced a single incident, total breakdown of his car. Waldock claims that on these facts all he had to prove is that he took his obviously malfunctioning car, then still under warranty, to Universal and that Universal refused to repair it. He argues that a car that will not run does not conform to the warranty. Nonconformance with the warranty is a breach. Some authorities support Waldock's view. The court in Fargo Machine & Tool Co. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp., 428 F. Supp. 364, 374 (E.D.Mich. 1977), held that the burden is not on the consumer of defective goods to show the precise technical explanations behind a malfunction, but rather, he must show that the goods do not conform to the warranty. Likewise, in Osburn v. Bendix Home System, Inc., 613 P.2d 445 (Okla. 1980), a mobile home manufacturer asserted that since the consumer failed to introduce any evidence of a defect in materials or workmanship, he failed in his burden of proof. That court stated: [T]he argument advanced is that, as in actions based on the theory of products liability, so in a breach-of-warranty case, the claimant must establish the presence of a specific defect. The contention so advanced is without merit. Identification of an existing defect is not essential to recovery upon express warranty. It is sufficient if, as here, the evidence shows, either directly or by permissible inference, that the goods were defective in their performance or function or that they otherwise failed to conform to the warranty. Osburn, 613 P.2d at 448 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). In Osburn, the consumer experienced numerous problems soon after moving into his mobile home and the court had no trouble attributing them to defects in materials or workmanship. Id. at 448-49. On the other hand, in Haas v. Buick Motor Division of the General Motors Corp., 20 Ill. App.2d 448, 156 N.E.2d 263 (1959), the court held that a consumer failed to make out a prima facie case against the manufacturer for breach of an express warranty. The court stated that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove, among other things, that there was some material defect in materials or workmanship. Haas, 156 N.E.2d at 266 (citation omitted). The pleadings were silent as to what part failed or was defective in materials or workmanship, thus causing Haas' car to catch on fire. The consumer in Haas showed nothing, yet expected the manufacturer to go forward with an inspection of the car. Id. at 267. [6] Haas is distinguishable from the case before us. Waldock advanced a plausible explanation for an engine failure which can never be conclusively proved, he claims, because of actions by mechanics for Universal. Waldock showed enough to make out a prima facie case of breach of warranty. It was then up to Universal to prove that the damage was caused by consumer abuse. The jury determined that Universal had not proved owner abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Problems arise when a consumer is required to prove that there are defects in specific materials or particular workmanship. Furthermore, a requirement that the consumer prove that the defect is caused by materials or workmanship makes the burden of proof language in the Magnuson-Moss Act basically irrelevant. Once the consumer offers credible evidence that the defect is materials or workmanship related, the burden shifts to the warrantor to prove consumer abuse. Policy reasons also support such a rule. Under the BMW warranty, and according to Universal's witnesses, BMW owners requiring warranty service on their cars may only take the damaged car to the service department of an authorized BMW dealer. [7] Placing the burden on the consumer to prove a precise defect is unfair and unconscionable since the dealer and manufacturer could tamper (whether intentionally or inadvertently) with the evidence. For example, Waldock claims that Universal's work on the engine destroyed evidence of timing problems because the cylinder head was removed. In a car warranty case, the consumer must offer credible evidence that the defect is materials or workmanship related. Such evidence establishes a prima facie case of breach of an express warranty. The burden then shifts to the dealer or manufacturer to prove consumer abuse. To impose an unreasonably heavy burden on consumers is to deny them a meaningful remedy. Prutch, 618 P.2d at 660. We believe this interpretation of the Magnuson-Moss Act best effectuates its intent.
The trial court did not err in failing to give the jury an instruction on Waldock's burden of proof. Whether Waldock presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case is a question of law. See IX J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2487, at 293 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1981). If he established a prima facie case, the burden of proof appropriately shifted to Universal to prove consumer abuse. Waldock presented an assortment of experts providing credible evidence that the engine failed due to a timing chain tensioner. To put a more onerous burden of proof on Waldock would destroy the remedial intent of the Magnuson-Moss Act. Waldock established a prima facie case of breach of warranty. The subsequent jury instructions were correct.