 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burns v. General Motors Corporation11/11/2003
the facts on which it based its opinion from the plaintiffs' expert witness' testimony, clearly crediting his testimony over the testimony offered by the defendant. That is not the function of a court reviewing a lemon law arbitration panel's decision. Regardless of whether the reviewing court would have decided the arbitration differently were it a member of the original arbitration panel, the reviewing court's scope of review of questions of fact is limited to whether there exists substantial evidence in the record to support the arbitration panel's award.
On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record before the arbitration panel to support its award in the defendant's favor. First, the defendant's expert witness, Dan Fuller, a regional field service engineer for General Motors' Northeast region, testified that the noise about which the plaintiffs complained is a normal characteristic of any manual transaxle type transmission, particularly pronounced in vehicles, such as the plaintiffs' vehicle, that are designed for fuel economy and does not, in any way, impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle. He opined, on the basis of his expert knowledge and the description of the noise in the transmission that was provided by the plaintiffs' testimony, that the noise was a normal characteristic of transmissions, not a defect, and, therefore, required no repair. On the basis of the defendant's expert testimony, the panel could have concluded reasonably that the noise produced in the transmission did not rise to the level of a substantial impairment of the car's use, safety or value.
Second, General Motors introduced documentary evidence from its engineering department that discussed the subject. That document indicated that the noise was characteristic of the plaintiffs' car's transmission and that replacing the transmission would not eliminate the noise. On the basis of that document, in conjunction with the plaintiffs' description, the arbitration panel also could have concluded reasonably that the noise produced in the transmission did not rise to the level of a substantial impairment of the car's use, safety or value.
Finally, the plaintiffs testified on cross-examination that during the time that they drove the car, it never broke down, was never towed, never had a single repair and never had a safety related incident occur. Although the plaintiffs offered some evidence indicating that the value of the car was impaired, it was within the arbitrations panel's discretion to believe or to disbelieve the evidence presented before it, either in whole or in part. " n determining whether an [arbitration panel's] finding is supported by substantial evidence, a court must defer ... tothe[arbitration panel's] right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness, even an expert, in whole or in part." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Thus, on the basis of the testimony of the plaintiffs on cross-examination, the arbitration panel could have concluded reasonably that the noise produced in the transmission did not rise to the level of a substantial impairment of the car's use, safety or value.
We conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the arbitration panel's finding that the transmission noise in the plaintiffs' car did not substantially impair its use, safety or value within the meaning of ยง 42-179 (d).
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to deny the plaintiffs' application to vacate the arbitration panel's award.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|