Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1

Plaintiffs Proposed Jurv Instruction No. 25
Plaintiff need not correctly identify the cause and source of the alleged defects.

2 3

4 (1974)); Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 6 Ariz. 213, 413 P.2d 108, (App.1967);

Authority: Larry J. Soldinger Assoc., Ltd. v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North Am., Inc., 1999 WL 756174 * 6 (N.D. IIi. 1999) (citing to H.R. REP. NO. 93-1107
Exteriors Inc. v. Don Mahurin Chevrolet & Oldsmobile, 429 N.E.2d 975,978 (Ind. App.

5 Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc., 399 P.2d 681 (Ariz. 1965); AAA

6 1981); MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co., 214 Pa.Super. 384, 257 A.2d 676, 679
7 (Pa.Super. 1969) (quoting Greco v. Buccioni Engineering Co., 283 F. Supp. 978

8 Burroughs Corp., 522 F.Supp. 769 (D. Md. 1981) ( affd 681 F.2d 812 (4th Cir. 1982);
9 Fargo Machine & Tool Co. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp., 428 F. Supp. 364 (E.D. Mich. 1977), Guardian Ins. Co. v. Anacostia Chrysler Plymouth, 320 A.2d 315 (D.C. 1974); 10 Capitol Dodge Sales, Inc. v. Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 535; Sipes v.
11 General Motors Corp., 946 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. App. 1997); Mason v. Porsche Cars

(W.D.Pa. 1967), affd, 407 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1969); Bruffey Contracting Co. v.

North America, Inc., 688 SO.2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

12

13 - Accepted
14 - Rejected
15 - Modified
16 17 18 19

Defendant objects to this instruction because it is contrary to the Court's

order dismissing Fleetwood wherein the Court stated:

20
21

22 23

'if that defect is one that can be understood by the reasonable juror'. But where an alleged defect is 'not within the reasonable purview of the average lay person' expert testimony is required. In addition, the 'mere existence' of a certain problem, however, does 'not support the inference' that the problem is caused by a defect.
The problem must be present and there must be some evidence

A lay witnesses' testimony regarding a defect wil often be enough

that the problem is caused by a 'manufacturing defect...in material or workmanship.
As an alternate instruction, see Defendant's

24
25 See Order at p. 11: 12-21.

26 27
28

Proposed Instructions Nos. 3 and 4.

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

51

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 1 of 10

1

Plaintiff's Proposed Jurv Instruction No. 26

2 3

Defendant's and/or any of Defendant's authorized repair agent's decisions,
statements or indications of what they consider to be a warrantable defect are neither
binding nor finaL.

4
5 6 7 8 9

Authority: 16 C.F.R. §700.8; 15 U.S.C. §2310 (d).

- Accepted
Rejected
Modified

10
11

Defendant objects to this instruction because it is redundant and

12

cumulative and likely to confuse the jury. The instruction fails to set forth any

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

actual standard for the jury to apply, and is simply an informative instruction.
Further, it is the warrantor's determination as to what falls within the bounds of
the limited written warranty. Cippolone v. Liaaett Group. Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 525

(1992) (UA manufacturer's liabilty for breach of an express warranty derives
from, and is measured by, the terms of that warranty. Accordingly, the

"requirement(s)" imposed by an express warranty claim are not "imposed
under State law," but rather imposed by the warrantor.")

20
21

22 23 24 25 26
27

28

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

52

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 2 of 10

1

Plaintiff's Proposed JUry Instruction No. 27
All statements of "AS IS" are invalid and are to be ignored.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1); A.R.S. §47-2316 (1); W Recreational

2 3

4
5

Vehicles, Inc. v. Swift Adhesives, Inc., 23 F.3d 1547 (9th Cir. 1994) (Wash. Law); Injection Service, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 874 F .2d 653 (9th Cir. 1989) (Nev. Law) (opinion amended at 890 F.2d 108); Virginia Transformer Corp v. P.O. George Co., 932 F.Supp 156 (W.O. Va. 1996).
Sierra Diesel

6
7 8 9

- Accepted
- Rejected
Modified

10

11 Defendant objects to this instruction because it is redundant and
12 cumulative and likely to confuse the jury. The instruction fails to set forth any

13 actual standard for the jury to apply, and is simply an informative instruction.

14 Defendant did not issue an "AS IS" warranty, but instead issued a limited
15 warranty that set forth exactly what was and was not covered under the limited

16 warranty.
17 18

19

20
21

22 23

24
25 26 27 28

::ODMA\PCDOCS\PHX\304617\1

53

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 3 of 10

1

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO.1

2 3

ALL PERSONS EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW
This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between

4
5

persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or

similar stations of life. A corporation is entitled to the same fair trial at your hands as a private individuaL. All persons, including corporations, stand equal before the law,
and are to be dealt with as equals in a court of justice.

6 7 8 9

Source: E. Devitt, C. Blackmar, M. Wolff, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions,

10
11

Civil § 71.04 (4th ed. 1987); See also, Manual of Model Jury Instructions for the
Ninth Circuit, § 6.01 (1993).

12 13

14 - Accepted
15 - Rejected

16 Modified
17 18 19

Plaintiff objects to this Jury instruction as redundant and cumulative.
Upon information and belief the court normally advises the jury directly on this

20
21

issue.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

: :ODMA\PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

54

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 4 of 10

1

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO.2

2

WARRANTY INTERPRETATION

3 Defendant Workhorse Custom Chassis's limited warranty is to be interpreted
4 according to the plain language of its terms. Where the terms of Workhorse's limited
5 warranty are unambiguous, you must construe the terms as written. The terms of the
6 limited warranty are what determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
7
8 9

Source: Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp., 212 Ariz. 18, 126 P.3d 165, 169
(App. 2006); Hasek v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 745 N.E.2d 627 (III. 2001); Dieter v.
Chrysler Corp., 234 Wis. 2d 670, 678, 610 N.W.2d 832, 836.

10
11

12

13 - Accepted
14 - Rejected

15 Modified
16 17 18 19

Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Proposed Jury Instruction as it is an incomplete statement of any law. Said instruction fails to include the language

of 15 U.S.C 2310 (d), "any obligation ... under a written warranty;" ignores the

20
21

obligations of implied terms and obligations of any such written agreement
(see Plaintiffs Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 8-11).

22

23 24
25 26

27
28

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

55

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 5 of 10

1

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO.3
CLAIMS AND ELEMENTS FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN WARRANTY

2
3

Plaintiff claims that Workhorse Custom Chassis breached its limited written

4 warranty. In order to recover under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Plaintiff has the

5 burden of proving that Workhorse Custom Chassis breached its written limited
6 warranty. On this claim, plaintiff must prove the following by a preponderance of the
7 evidence that:

8 9

1)

The motor home chassis was covered by a limited written warranty

issued by Workhorse Custom Chassis;

10
11

2) The motor home chassis has components defective in material,
workmanship or factory preparation;
3) Plaintiff reported the alleged defect(s) to Workhorse Custom Chassis

12 13

and/or its authorized dealerships/repairing facilities.

14 15
16 17 18 19

4) Workhorse Custom Chassis failed or refused to make repairs or
replacements of parts at no cost to the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the
limited written warranty; and
5) Plaintiff sustained damages as a proximate cause of the alleged breach

of the limited written warranty.

If Plaintiff is unable to meet all of the elements set forth above, you must find in

20
21

favor of Workhorse Custom Chassis on Plaintiff's claim for the limited written
warranty.
Source: See Court's Order Granting Fleetwood's Motion for Summary Judgment,

22 23 24
25

p. 23:27; Nevada Contract Services. Inc. v. Sauirrel Companies. Inc., 119 Nev.
157,161,68 P.3d 896, 899 (Nev. 2003); Chaurasia v. General Motors Corporation,

26 27 28

126 P.3d 165, 169 (Ariz.App. 2006); Cippolone v. Liaaett Group. Inc., 505 U.S.
504, 525 (1992); Hines v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1229 (D.
Ga. 2005); Hasek v. DaimlerChrysler, 745 NE.2d 627,630 (III. App. 2001).

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

56

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 6 of 10

1

- Accepted

2
3

4
5

-

- Rejected
Modified

6
7 8 9

Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Proposed Jury instruction as it is an incomplete statement of any law. Said instruction fails to include the language

of 15 U.S.C 2310 (d), "any obligation ... under a written warranty;" ignores the

obligations of implied terms and obligations of any such written agreement
(see Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 8-11). Accordingly, one way for

10
11

Defendant to have breached its warranty was to fail to meet the parties
reasonable expectations as to what the warranty would provide, a Motor Home

12

with a Workhorse chassis capable of being safely used and timely repaired
(which is an express promise within the warranty).

13
14

15 16
17

18 19

20
21

22 23 24

25
26 27

28

:: ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

57

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 7 of 10

1

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO.4
PROOF OF A DEFECT

2 3

Plaintiff must present expert testimony to show that the problem complained of
is caused by a defect in materials or workmanship when the alleged defect is outside

4
5

of the purview of the average layperson. Just because a problem exists with the

6 7
8

motor home chassis does not mean that the problem is caused by a defect in
materials or workmanship.

9 10
11

Source: See Court's Order Granting Fleetwood's Motion for Summary

Judgment, p. 11:9-23; Bailev v. Monaco Coach Corp, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1045

(N.D. Ga. 2004); Teerlina v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, No. 990C5926,
2001 WL 641337 at *5 (N.D. II. June 4,2001).

12

13

14 - Accepted
15 - Rejected

16 Modified
17 18 19

Plaintiff objects to Defendant's proposed jury instruction. Plaintiff is not
required to provide expert testimony to prove a defect in materials and

20
21

22

workmanship. Nevada Contract Services, Inc. v. Squirrel Companies, Inc., 68 P.3d 896 (Nev., 2003). Plaintiff may prove the presence of a defect by circumstantial evidence and/or testimony of Plaintiff. (see Plaintiff's Proposed
Jury Instructions Nos. 22-24).

23 24 25
26 27 28

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

58

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 8 of 10

1

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO.5
CLAIMS AND ELEMENTS FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

2

3 Plaintiff claims that Workhorse Custom Chassis breached the implied warranty

4 of merchantability. On this claim, Plaintiff must prove the following by a

5 preponderance of the evidence that:
6 1) That the motor home chassis was subject to the implied warranty of
7 merchantability at the time of sale;

8 2) Workhorse custom chassis breached the implied warranty of
9 merchantability in that the chassis was defective at the time of sale; and

10 3) Plaintiff sustained damages as a proximate cause of the alleged breach

11 of the implied warranty of merchantability.

12 To show that Workhorse has breached the implied warranty of merchantability,
13 Plaintiff must show that motor home chassis was not fit for the ordinary purpose for

14 which it was used. Specifically, Plaintiff must show that must show that Workhorse

15 failed to make repairs to the motor home chassis. The motor home chassis does not

16 need to be superior or perfect. It is only necessary the motor home chassis be of
17 reasonable quality within expected variations and fi for the ordinary purposes for
18 which it is used.

19 If Plaintiff is unable to meet all of the elements set forth above, you must find in
20 favor of Workhorse Custom Chassis on Plaintiff's claim for the implied warranty of

21 merchantabilty.
22 23 24 25

Source: See Court's Order Granting Fleetwood's Motion for Summary Judgment,
p. 14:20-26; Nevada Contract Services. Inc. v. Sauirrel Companies. Inc., 119 Nev.
157, 161, 68 P.3d 896, 899 (Nev. 2003); Sessa v. Rieale, 427 F. Supp. 760, 770

26 27
28

(E.D. Pa. 1977); Monticello v. Winnebaao Industries and Workhorse Custom
Chassis, 369 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1360-61 (N.D. Ga. 2005); Lawrence, Larry;
59

: :ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\1

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 9 of 10

1

Lawrence's An~erson on the Uniform Commerc~al Code § 2-314:144 (Updated

2 3

June 2006).

4 - Accepted 5 - Rejected 6 - Modified
7 8
9

Plaintiff objects to Defendant's proposed jury instruction. Plaintiff does
not need to show that Defendant "failed to make repairs." Nevada Contract

10
11

Services. Inc. v. Sauirrel Companies. Inc., 119 Nev. 157, 161, 68 P.3d 896, 899
(Nev. 2003) (stating "(i)n a breach of warranty cause of action, a plaintiff must

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

prove that a warranty existed, the defendant breached the warranty, and the
defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the loss sustained"). Plaintiff
need only show that the chassis was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which
it is used. (see Plaintiffs Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 8).

20
21

22

23 24 25 26
27

28

::ODMA \PCDOCS\PHX\304617\ 1

60

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 205-5

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 10 of 10