Iskander v. Ford Motor Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Iskander v. Ford Motor Co.

394 N.E.2d 1017, 59 Ohio App. 2d 325, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 334, 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 387, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 7605

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1978

Docket742 and 758

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 394 N.E.2d 1017 (Iskander v. Ford Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iskander v. Ford Motor Co., 394 N.E.2d 1017, 59 Ohio App. 2d 325, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 334, 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 387, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 7605 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Tins is an appeal from a decision of the Common Pleas Court granting defendant’s Civ. B. 12 (B)(6) motions for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The sustaining of the motion is the sole assignment of error. We affirm.

Facts

Plaintiff; Iskander purchased a 1977 Ford LTD Landau from Snell Ford, Inc. on November 13, 1976. Plaintiff’s complaint states that two days later and many times thereafter he returned the car to the distributor and asked them to remedy “a defect in the engineering and manufac *326 turing of the automobile, same being that the sound of blowing wind in the interior of the car becomes pronounced while driving on the open highway.” He further alleges that the defendant Snell has not found the defect and: has not remedied the complaint. Plaintiff alleges express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use. While he does not assert pecuniary loss, plaintiff says he has been “forced to drive an automobile that is defective, causing * * * [him] * * * great emotional stress and anxi--ety.” He seeks $25,000 damages.

Discussion

The warranty involved here is to repair and replace defective parts. There is no warranty of personal satisfaction from its use. The plaintiff must allege and prove objectively the nature of the defects in order to recover. Mere subjective complaints are not enough, i. e.; “It steers like a truck * * * It doesn’t have enough pick-up * * * It doesn’t hold the road * * The turning radius is too big ^ ypieg ]jpe a horse-cart.”

Even assuming the complaint could be more artfully drawn and predicated upon an implied warranty as to riding comfort and freedom from “undesirable” worries, there is still an absence of any pecuniary loss or physical injury. Without such there can be no recovery for stress or anxiety.

We overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

'Bell,'and Victor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mahoney, P. J.

Tins is an appeal from a decision of the Common Pleas Court granting defendant’s Civ. B. 12 (B)(6) motions for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The sustaining of the motion is the sole assignment of error. We affirm.

Facts

Plaintiff; Iskander purchased a 1977 Ford LTD Landau from Snell Ford, Inc. on November 13, 1976. Plaintiff’s complaint states that two days later and many times thereafter he returned the car to the distributor and asked them to remedy “a defect in the engineering and manufac *326 turing of the automobile, same being that the sound of blowing wind in the interior of the car becomes pronounced while driving on the open highway.” He further alleges that the defendant Snell has not found the defect and: has not remedied the complaint. Plaintiff alleges express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use. While he does not assert pecuniary loss, plaintiff says he has been “forced to drive an automobile that is defective, causing * * * [him] * * * great emotional stress and anxi--ety.” He seeks $25,000 damages.

Discussion

The warranty involved here is to repair and replace defective parts. There is no warranty of personal satisfaction from its use. The plaintiff must allege and prove objectively the nature of the defects in order to recover. Mere subjective complaints are not enough, i. e.; “It steers like a truck * * * It doesn’t have enough pick-up * * * It doesn’t hold the road * * The turning radius is too big ^ ypieg ]jpe a horse-cart.”

Even assuming the complaint could be more artfully drawn and predicated upon an implied warranty as to riding comfort and freedom from “undesirable” worries, there is still an absence of any pecuniary loss or physical injury. Without such there can be no recovery for stress or anxiety.

We overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

'Bell,'and Victor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 N.E.2d 1017, 59 Ohio App. 2d 325, 13 Ohio Op. 3d 334, 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 387, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 7605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iskander-v-ford-motor-co-ohioctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack