Impaired use does not mean no use. Manufacturers love to argue that, so long as the consumer is still driving the vehicle at all, there has been no substantial impairment in use. This argument is wrong because lemon laws are not limited to problems that prevent use altogether. The argument makes as little sense as arguing that a defect does not impair safety unless the driver actually dies in a car crash.
For example, suppose a consumer purchases a vehicle with the specific intent to use it at least twice per year to visit her mother who lives in another state. The vehicle has defects that make her uncomfortable driving it on long trips, so she never uses it to visit her mother. Her use of the vehicle has been impaired even if she still drives it to work every day.
As another example, suppose a vehicle is in the shop for repairs for 120 days during the first year of ownership. This clearly impairs the owner’s use of the vehicle, even if he can use it for any purpose when it is not in the shop.
A defect can impair a vehicle’s use even if it does not directly affect the amount the vehicle is driven. For example, if the air conditioning emits a stench so pervasive that it gags the driver or triggers an asthma attack in a family member, it is not fit for its intended use.
|
