Call For A FREE Consultation

The California Lemon Law- No Pain and Suffering

  Norman Taylor & Associates
  July 21, 2010

Tell that to Mrs. Jones, who has just lost three hours of work time (not reimbursed) trying to get a ride from the dealership back to work. She waited and waited to find out why they couldn’t fix another check engine light problem. This is the sixth time she has taken it in for this problem. The last time it failed she was on the freeway on her way to work, tooling along in the fast lane listening to her favorite tunes. Out of nowhere the engine coughs asthmatically and a host of red and yellow warning lights appear on the instrument panel. Somehow she made it to the shoulder across four lanes of traffic, and narrowly missed becoming a hood ornament on a speed crazed Peterbilt semi trailer.

When she finally decided to call about the California lemon law, she described these events and asked how much she could get for her pain and suffering. Regrettably for Mrs. Jones there isn’t any payment for pain and suffering. In addition to a replacement or refund, there are damages provisions, but none that allow for pain and suffering. A jury might be asked the question of whether the manufacturer has willfully failed to comply with the lemon law, in which case, it is possible to award a consumer with “treble damages.”

If you are in Mrs. Jones’s situation you may agree that there was a lot of pain and suffering, including fear for her life and loss of money as she goes back and forth to the dealer trying to get something done about her defective vehicle. The bottom line is that there simply isn’t any provision for pain and suffering in the California lemon law.

Contact Us

  • 425 West Broadway, Suite 220
    Glendale, CA 91204

Regular Hours

  • Monday - Friday
  • 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.