CACI No. 3204. "Substantially Impaired" Explained

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2017 edition)

Download PDF
3204.“Substantially Impaired” Explained
In deciding whether a reasonable person would believe that the vehicle’s
defect[s], if any, substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety,
you may consider, among other factors, the following:
(a) [The nature of the defect[s];]
(b) [The cost and length of time required for repair;]
(c) [Whether past repair attempts have been successful;]
(d) [The degree to which the vehicle could be used while awaiting
(e) [The availability and cost of comparable transportation during
the repairs;] [and]
(f) [Insert other appropriate factor.]
New February 2005; Revised December 2005
Directions for Use
Some or all of the stated factors may not be necessary in every case. Depending on
the facts of the case, other factors may be added as appropriate.
Sources and Authority
• “Whether the impairment is substantial is determined by an objective test, based
on what a reasonable person would understand to be a defect. This test is
applied, however, within the specific circumstances of the buyer.” (Lundy v.
Ford Motor Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 472, 478 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 545], internal
citations omitted.)
• “The issue of whether the problems constituted substantial impairment is one
for the trier of fact.” (Schreidel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34
Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 576], internal citations omitted.)
• “The term [‘substantially’] modifies its object, ‘impairment.’ It injects an
element of degree; not every impairment is sufficient to satisfy the statute. The
most analogous definition of ‘substantially’ we have found in a context similar
to its usage here is in the Uniform Commercial Code, section 2-608. Like the
clause at issue here, this provision requires a determination of whether a defect
‘substantially impairs’ the value of goods sold to a buyer. Under it, the trier of
fact may consider: ‘the nature of the defects; the cost and length of time
required for repair; whether past repair attempts have been successful; the
degree to which the goods can be used while repairs are attempted;
[inconvenience to buyer]; and the availability and cost of alternative goods
pending repair . . . .’ It may be that this term, like ‘reasonable,’ is incapable of
precise definition. At the least, the requirement is not satisfied by any
impairment, however insignificant, that affects use, value, or safety.” (Lundy,
supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 478, internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Sales, §§ 316–320
8California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 91, Automobiles: Actions
Involving Defects and Repairs, §§ 91.12[2], 91.64 (Matthew Bender)
44 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 502, Sales: Warranties, § 502.53
(Matthew Bender)
20 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 206, Sales, §§ 206.104, 206.127 (Matthew

© Judicial Council of California.