While it may be permissible, I believe that the judge should be required to take into account that the claim is that the car is unsafe. If the car is unsafe, it shouldn't be driven - he should not be able to have it both ways. If you are in an accident and the state determines that your vehicle is not safe, they will require it to be towed to a wrecking yard or repair facility. Why should this be any different? It's ludicrous that he was allowed to drive it, and that the misconduct from the judge is unchecked by a system that is meant to protect the people and the state.

Big Mack

 

I agree. Allowing someone to recover double the value of a car that is supposed to be a lemon while still allowing him to drive the car as much as he wants doesn't seem to be very good public policy. Wisconsin statutes or case law may very well allow such a recovery, but the point of civil law is to give appropriate reparation to those who have been injured somehow. How much has he really been damaged if he's driven the car 56,000 miles in 4 years and has not had any problems with it?

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out under appeal. As mentioned in the article, it is very unusual to have judges overrule juries in any situation, but especially on the basis of insufficient evidence. I'm the last one to defend MB on anything regarding reliability - my past ownership experience demonstrated the lack of reliability due to their choice to use shoddy workmanship and cheap parts - but this seems like a typical judicial activist ploy. The mere fact that a jury reached a verdict at least in part exonerating MB suggests that there is more to the story than what is mentioned here.


It's paid work well exceeding the value of the claim even at double damages, so yeah, the lawyer is the real winner as usual. Whether legal fees are excessive or not is a separate issue.