Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile. We hold that a consumer enjoys a presumption of recovery under R.C. 1345.73(B) if his or her vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership regardless of whether the vehicle was successfully repaired at some point beyond that thirty-day period.
Factual and Procedural Background
The facts here are not in dispute. On February…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Maitland v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2004
- Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- Klein v. MoutzOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
- McHenry v. McHenryOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.