CACI 3203 Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities—Rebuttable Presumption (Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b))
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
The number of opportunities to make repairs is presumed to be reasonable if [name of plaintiff] proves that within [18 months from delivery of the [new motor vehicle] to [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it]] [or] [the first 18,000 miles] [insert option A, B, and/or C:]
[A.1. The vehicle was made available to [name of defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] for repair of the same substantially impairing defect two or more times; [and]
2.The defect resulted in a condition that was likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle were driven; [and]
3.[[Name of plaintiff] directly notified [name of manufacturer] in writing about the need to repair the defect;] [or]]
[B.1. The vehicle was made available to [name of defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] for repair of the same substantially impairing defect four or more times; [and]
2.[[Name of plaintiff] directly notified [name of manufacturer] in writing about the need to repair the defect;] [or]]
[C.The vehicle was out of service for repair of substantially impairing defects by [name of defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] for more than 30 days.]
If [name of plaintiff] has proved these facts, then the number of opportunities to make repairs was reasonable unless [name of defendant] proves that under all the circumstances [name of defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] was not given a reasonable opportunity to repair the defect.
[The 30-day limit for repairing defects will be lengthened if [name of defendant] proves that repairs could not be made because of conditions beyond the control of [name of defendant] or its authorized repair facility.]
New September 2003; Revised February 2005, May 2020
This instruction should not be given if none of the enumerated situations apply to the plaintiff’s case. (Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1245 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 679].)
Note that the factfinder’s inquiry should be focused on overall reasonableness of the opportunities plaintiff gave defendant to make repairs. Therefore, while satisfying the rebuttable presumption (without having it overcome by defendant) is one way for plaintiff to satisfy the reasonable opportunities requirement, the plaintiff may do so in other ways instead. Likewise, because the statutory presumption is rebuttable, defendant is allowed an opportunity to overcome it.
The rebuttable presumption concerning the number of repair attempts applies only to new motor vehicles—see the Tanner Consumer Protection Act. (Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b).)
The bracketed language in the first two optional paragraphs concerning notice made directly to the manufacturer are applicable only if “the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner’s manual, the provisions of [the Tanner Consumer Protection Act] and that of [Civil Code section 1793.2(d)], including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly.” (See Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b)(3).) This is a matter that the judge should determine ahead of time as an issue of law.
•Replacement or Reimbursement After Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts. Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2).
•Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities. Civil Code section 1793.22(b).
•“We believe … that the only affirmative step the Act imposes on consumers is to ‘permit the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle.’ Whether or not the manufacturer’s agents choose to take advantage of the opportunity, or are unable despite that opportunity to isolate and make an effort to repair the problem, are matters for which the consumer is not responsible.” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103–1104 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 583], internal citations and footnote omitted.)