Ford store hit with big verdict for not properly recommending repairs

A dealership's failure to advise a customer to replace worn ball joints on a 2004 Ford F-250 Super Duty pickup proved a costly omission — nearly $7.5 million awarded by a jury.

The California Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by the dealership, Folsom Lake Ford, after the verdict. The store had acquired the truck at auction, sold it to a customer who returned it after multiple steering problems, and then resold it.

When the new owner brought the truck in with a steering complaint, a service technician determined that all four ball joints were worn. But the tech didn't document the degree of wear as required by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair or write his recommendation for replacement on the invoice, the court decision said.

The court found no evidence that the service adviser who worked with the owner communicated the problem, as regulations mandate. He said only that the problems were "normal" for a truck equipped with a lift kit and oversized wheels.

The owner loaned the truck to Robert Dunlap, who was driving it to tow an Econoline van when its right front tire blew out at 65 to 70 mph, the steering wheel locked, and it rolled over 2¼ times. He was permanently injured.

Although the insurers had the F-250 destroyed before it could be examined by experts, the appeals court found enough evidence that worn ball joints caused the accident. It cited testimony from forensic automotive and accident reconstruction experts.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Alan Laskin of Sacramento, says the lesson for dealers is "listen to your customers when they say there's a problem" and don't put their safety at risk. Dealership lawyer Douglas MacKay, of Rancho Cordova, Calif., said he wasn't authorized to discuss the case.

A federal judge threw out a former service adviser's negligence claim against a dealership group. But the case will proceed on related claims of discrimination and emotional distress.

The ex-adviser, Donald Connolly, alleges in a lawsuit that a female coworker subjected him to "regular, graphic descriptions of her sexual interests and preferred sexual acts; sexual questions about (Connolly); stories about other employees' sex acts; aggressive sexual advances and demands; and other sexual harassment."

Connolly said he told his supervisor at Alderman's Toyota in Rutland, Vt., about the problem and requested help, but claimed he was warned he might be fired if he complained directly to the dealer.

He was transferred to a Kia dealership operated by Alderman's Auto Group, but the sexual harassment continued and Connolly was later fired after three years with the company, the suit alleges.

Connolly's lawsuit also claims the group failed to properly train managers and personnel to report and respond appropriately to workplace sexual harassment, and negligently retained employees whose behavior they knew or should have known would put co-workers at risk. It also accused the dealership group of negligently responding to Connolly's complaints.

The dealership group denies wrongdoing and said it fired Connelly based on poor job performance. A lawyer representing the group, F. David Harlow of Brattleboro, Vt., said: "We look forward to defending this case in court."

U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss held that Connolly's negligence claim is barred by state workers' compensation and fair employment practices laws. Workers' compensation is the "exclusive remedy for negligence-based harms in the workplace," Reiss wrote. She said the anti-discrimination law provides a remedy for on-the-job sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.

Connolly's lawyer, John Stasny of Manchester Center, Vt., said that even without the negligence claim, his client would be entitled to the same damages if he wins at trial.

A dealership's service manager had the authority to sign a binding contract for uniform services, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled. The court upheld a $21,394 award against Findlay Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram won by Cintas Corp., which supplies custom uniforms to businesses.

The court said the service manager, Justin Lobdell, told a Cintas sales representative that the dealership had a contract with another company for towels, mats and rugs, but wanted a new style of uniform from Cintas. Lobdell signed a five-year contract and ordered "specialized Mopar shirts" for employees.

The dealership canceled the agreement after the other company threatened to sue, the decision said. Cintas successfully sued for breach of contract in the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas.

The appeals court rejected the dealership's argument that Lobdell had no authority to sign contracts, because he signed warranty claims and contracts related to "day-to-day operations, such as the purchase of oil."

Cintas lawyer Michael Clawson says the damages were a "pre-agreed amount which essentially compensates Cintas for its losses."

The case has lessons for dealers, says lawyer Ian Weber, who represents the dealership.

"Have your attorney review any and all contracts signed by the dealership," Weber says. "Also, be very cautious about having your employees sign contracts that could bind the business."

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing a Hawaii dealership over alleged discrimination in rejecting a deaf applicant for an entry-level position as a detailer.

The government's suit, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, accuses Cutter Mazda of Honolulu of discrimination based on Ryan Vicari's "actual disability" and "perceived disability." It seeks lost pay, compensation for emotional pain, and punitive damages on behalf of Vicari, who is deaf but reads lips.

The suit says Vicari's grandmother accompanied him to an interview as his interpreter, but Cutter Mazda's "interviewing manager immediately stated they could not hire him because he was deaf and abruptly ended the interview."

In earlier litigation, the store denied discrimination and said it had no detailer positions available when Vicari applied. The store said it considered him for an opening for a service lot attendant, but he was unqualified because the job "requires constant communication with other employees via two-way radio."

The EEOC said it tried to resolve the dispute informally before suing. The dealership's attorney did not respond to a request for comment.