California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3203. Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities - Rebuttable Presumption (Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b))

Download PDF
3203.Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities—Rebuttable
Presumption (Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b))
The number of opportunities to make repairs is presumed to be
reasonable if [name of plaintiff] proves that within [18 months from
delivery of the [new motor vehicle] to [him/her/it]] [or] [the first 18,000
miles] [insert option A, B, and/or C:]
[A. 1. The vehicle was made available to [name of defendant] [or its
authorized repair facility] for repair of the same
substantially impairing defect two or more times; [and]
2. The defect resulted in a condition that was likely to cause
death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle were driven;
[and]
3. [[Name of plaintiff] directly notified [name of manufacturer] in
writing about the need to repair the defect;] [or]]
[B. 1. The vehicle was made available to [name of defendant] [or its
authorized repair facility] for repair of the same
substantially impairing defect four or more times; [and]
2. [[Name of plaintiff] directly notified [name of manufacturer] in
writing about the need to repair the defect;] [or]]
[C. The vehicle was out of service for repair of substantially
impairing defects by [name of defendant] [or its authorized repair
facility] for more than 30 days.]
If [name of plaintiff] has proved these facts, then the number of
opportunities to make repairs was reasonable unless [name of defendant]
proves that under all the circumstances [name of defendant] [or its
authorized repair facility] was not given a reasonable opportunity to
repair the defect.
[The 30-day limit for repairing defects will be lengthened if [name of
defendant] proves that repairs could not be made because of conditions
beyond the control of [name of defendant] or its authorized repair
facility.]
New September 2003; Revised February 2005
Directions for Use
This instruction should not be given if none of the enumerated situations apply to
the plaintiff’s case. (Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1235,
1245 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 679].)
394
0014
Note that the factfinder’s inquiry should be focused on overall reasonableness of
the opportunities plaintiff gave defendant to make repairs. Therefore, while
satisfying the rebuttable presumption (without having it overcome by defendant) is
one way for plaintiff to satisfy the reasonable opportunities requirement, he or she
may do so in other ways instead. Likewise, because the statutory presumption is
rebuttable, defendant is allowed an opportunity to overcome it.
The rebuttable presumption concerning the number of repair attempts applies only
to new motor vehicles—see the Tanner Consumer Protection Act. (Civ. Code,
§ 1793.22(b).)
The bracketed language in the first two optional paragraphs concerning notice made
directly to the manufacturer are applicable only if “the manufacturer has clearly
and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner’s manual,
the provisions of [the Tanner Consumer Protection Act] and that of [Civil Code
section 1793.2(d)], including the requirement that the buyer must notify the
manufacturer directly.” (See Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b)(3).) This is a matter that the
judge should determine ahead of time as an issue of law.
Sources and Authority
• Replacement or Reimbursement After Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts.
Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2).
• Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities. Civil Code section 1793.22(b).
• “We believe . . . that the only affirmative step the Act imposes on consumers is
to ‘permit[] the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle.’
Whether or not the manufacturer’s agents choose to take advantage of the
opportunity, or are unable despite that opportunity to isolate and make an effort
to repair the problem, are matters for which the consumer is not responsible.”
(Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103–1104
[109 Cal.Rptr.2d 583], internal citations and footnote omitted.)
Secondary Sources
2 California UCC Sales & Leases (Cont.Ed.Bar) Prelitigation Remedies, § 17.10
8California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 91, Automobiles: Actions
Involving Defects and Repairs, § 91.16 (Matthew Bender)
20 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 206, Sales, § 206.104 (Matthew Bender)
5 California Civil Practice: Business Litigation, § 53:27 (Thomson Reuters)
SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT CACI No. 3203
395
0015