Let me give you an example of a situation last year in which I was an EW for plaintiff.
Plaintiff brought case against GM (defendant) for an engine that failed 1,500 miles before warranty was void. GM denied engine replacement. The plaintiff used the owners manual to record his oil type at oil drain, filter, the date, mileage on engine, and mileage on oil.
Defendants lawyer (GM) was trying to make the owner look like he had kept poor and unofficial records and acted in bad faith toward scheduled oil changes.
The EW was called (me).
Defendants Lawyer (GM): To your knowledge and experience, what do you think of the plaintiff's method of keeping records?
EW: From the User's Manual for the car that I have examined, yes, I would say he kept meticulous records.
GM: The plaintiff claims he changed the oil according to schedule, is that your understanding?
EW: The plaintiff changed oil according to the "Severe Schedule" listed as per the GM manual.
GM: And what does that mean?
EW: He changed oil at shorter intervals than he really had to, because he wanted longevity from the car.
GM: But when the shop analyzed the oil, it showed a viscosity increase, indiciative of allowing the oil to stay in the engine too long; isn't that true?
EW: There are many causes of increase in viscosity. When I looked at the oil analysis, I saw increased elements associated with glycol and liquid glycol intrusion into the oil.
GM: And for the record and the jury, please explain what you mean.
EW: The head gasket leaked causing anti-freeze to mix with the oil.
GM: I just asked you to explain what glycol meant so the jury could clarify.
EW: No, for the record you asked a process question, not a simple definition.
GM: And what happens when anti-freeze enters the oil?
EW: The oil thins at first, which we call a viscosity decrease, or thinning of the oil, and the mix becomes a jelled mess, eventually oxidizing to a thick sludge.
GM: So anti-freeze could get into the engine, or higher than normal viscoity oil was put into the engine.
EW: Is that a question or comment?
GM: Please comment.
EW: It is my opinion that it was anti-freeze that infiltrated the oil and caused the engine to fail.
GM: How do we know that the plaintiff didn't have a grudge against GM and put anti-freeze into the crankcase just to stiff GM? He had written threatening letters to GM!
EW: How do we know you didn't beat your wife or girlfriend this morning? The letter I saw attempted over a period of 9 months to get GM to resolve the issue, or he would have to take the issue to court. I saw no threatening language, and here he is suing you for damages!
The judge found against GM and stated that no special bookkeeping was necessary, nor did GM define record keeping, to prove sufficient oil change intervals, and that the record of oil and lubrication changes found in GM's own owner's manual was sufficient during the warranty period.
Furthermore, the plaintiff received a new engine and cash for time off from work, mental anguish, and car rental, and a promisory note for a 30% discosunt on his next GM vehicle.
The plaintiff bought a Toyota the next year!!
[ May 01, 2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]