Court Opinion

ID: 9855258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:21:58.330388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:24.473542
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
(dissenting). I differ from the majority's determination on damages on two grounds. First, I would conclude the restrictive definition of "collateral costs" found in sec. 218.015(l)(a), Stats., applies only to expenses, including alternative transportation, incurred in connection with the repairs. It does not operate to limit the remedy afforded in subsection (7), which states: "[A] consumer may bring an action to recover for any damages caused by a violation of this section. The court shall award a consumer who prevails in such an action twice the amount of any pecuniary loss. . .." (Emphasis added.) While collateral costs here may be restricted to the thirty-three-day period when the Toyota was in for repair, the consumer is still entitled under the statute to recover for other pecuniary loss. Such pecuniary loss could, in an operative case, entail the cost of obtaining alternative transportation unconnected to the repair of the nonconformity, but rather because of the manufacturer's refusal to replace the vehicle or give the appropriate refund.
Second, I would not limit these additional pecuniary damages, as does the majority, to "transportation costs incurred during this reasonable period of time" and exempt any damages resulting "once the consumer has obtained another vehicle." A plaintiff has the duty to mitigate damages, and the court may properly inquire into any attempted mitigation prior to awarding damages. Damages recoverable under the statute, however, *388should not be defined using this "reasonableness" component.