Favorable Consumer Decision in Car Repair Case

A consumer in Ohio received a favorable decision from an Ohio Appeals Court where it upheld a jury verdict:

Williams v. Sharon Woods Collision involved a 2010 Nissan Maxima that plaintiff Jeremy Williams brought to Sharon Woods Collision for a repair in 2012.

…

The jury found in favor of Williams on both of his CSPA claims. It found that SWCC had (1) represented that the repair of the car had sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits that it did not have; (2) represented that the repair was of a particular standard or quality that it was not; (3) represented that the repair had been performed in accordance with a previous representation, when it had not; (4) represented that it had a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that it did not have; (5) failed to perform the repairs in a workmanlike manner; (6) stalled and delayed or attempted to avoid a legal obligation; (7) charged for labor based on an estimate of time, instead of the actual time to perform the repair; (8) returned the car to Williams in an unsafe condition; (9) failed to provide the consumer with an itemized list of repairs and failed to tender replaced parts; and (10) committed other deceptive and unfair practices.

And as to the amount of the verdict:

This part of the appellate decision is key, as it accounted for the bulk of the $105,462.59 awarded Williams.

“The total jury award in this case was $8,079.78,” Schweikert wrote in 2016. “At first glance one might think that the Plaintiffs request of a total of $86,726.62 in fees and costs is an outrageous sum in relationship to the jury award. However, in the Bittner case, Chief Justice Moyer discarded that concern immediately stating, ‘At the outset, we reject the contention that the amount of attorney fees awarded pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F) must bear a direct relationship to the dollar amount of the settlement, between the consumer and the supplier.’”