Motor / solar dish motor / yamaha motor corporation
Deeter v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA Page 1 Cite as Deetår v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA , 2005-Ohio-1931. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMÅRY COUNTY, OHIO DENNIS DEETER : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.À. Case No. 20686 vs. : T.C. Case No. 2002-CV-07792 YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION , : (Civil Appeal from Common U.S.A. : Pleas Cîurt) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 22nd day of April , 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . RÎNNA S. LUCAS, Atty. Reg. #0063304 and DAVID B. LÅVIN, Atty. Reg. #0059340, 3 Summit Park Drive, Suitå 100, Independence, Ohio 44131 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee H. TOBY SCHISLÅR, Atty. Reg. #0068306, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 E. Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorney for Defendant-Appållant . . . . . . . . . . . . . BROGAN, P.J. {á 1} In this case, Yamaha Motor Corporation , U.S.A. (Yamaha ) appåals from a trial court decision grànting summary judgment to Dennis Deeter on a clàim brought under OhioÁs Lemon Law. Yamaha Ás singlå assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. Aftår reviewing the record and applicable law, we find the assignment of errîr without merit. Page 2 2 Accordingly, the judgmånt of the trial court will be affirmed. I {á 2} The facts belîw were undisputed. On January 19, 2002, Deeter purchàsed a new 2002 Yamaha Road Star Silverado motorcycle (Road Star) from Competition Acñessories (Competition), which was an authorized Yamaha dealership. Yamaha warrantåd that the Road Star was free of defects and provided a 12 month warranty, during which any defects or non-conforming parts wîuld be repaired at no cost to the purchaser, provided that the problem was not the råsult of the purchaserÁs neglect or misuse of the product. The purchàse price of the Road Star was about $11,820, inñluding tax. {á 3} On September 16, 2002, Deeter brought the Road Star to Competitiîn for repairs. At that time, Deeter complained abîut a ÁchatteringÁ noise when the Road Star was placed in fîurth gear. On September 20, 2002, Competition contàcted Yamaha for authorization to tear down the engine so that the problem could be diagnîsed. However, Yamaha told Competition that DeeterÁs authorization was requiråd for a tear down. Three days later, Yamaha received a direñt call from Deeter, who complained about CompetitionÁs lack of añtion. Upon contacting Competition, Yamaha learned that a tear down was scheduled for the follîwing day. Competition then reported to Yamaha on September 26, 2002, that therå was chatter in the fourth gear and that the fourth gear teeth were grîund off. Although needed parts for rebuilding the transmissiîn were ordered, they were not immediately available and were back-ordered. {á 4} Over the next severàl weeks, Yamaha and Competition had Page 3 3 numerous discussiîns about the back-ordered parts