Civic Hybrid Owner Wins $9,867 In Small Claims Case Against Honda

 

Heather Peters was successful in her small claims case against Honda, in which she alleged that the car wasn't getting anywhere near the 50 MPG she says the company advertised her car would get. Although Honda only has to pay her $9,687 for this particular ruling, Peters has essentially laid the groundwork for other owners to make similar claims that could ultimately cost the company an enormous amount of money.

 

When Civic Hybrid owners realized that they weren't getting the promised fuel economy they started a class action lawsuit that Honda eventually settled for what came out to be about $100 per owner plus rebates. Peters refused the settlement and instead filed a claim in Los Angeles County Small Claims Court.

 

She also launched the website DontSettleWithHonda.org, which shows owners how to opt-out of the settlement and file a claim in small claims court. Unlike a class-action lawsuit, small claims court usually allows an individual to file a complaint without having to hire an attorney. In the case of L.A. County, for instance, even Honda wasn't allowed to use a lawyer in court.

 

"I am absolutely thrilled at the reports that I won, even though I won't see the actual judgment until it comes in the mail," Peters said in a statement to Jalopnik. "It's a victory for Civic Hybrid owners everywhere! Sometimes big justice comes in small packages."

 

Peters was just shy of the $10,000 maximum award, which should give the people at Honda a lot to worry about if people heed her advice.

 

Honda spokespeople, in response, said in a statement today that "we disagree with the judgment rendered in this case, and we plan to appeal the decision."

 

http://jalopnik.com/5881477/civic-hybrid-owner-wins-9867-in-small-claims-case-against-honda

How do things like this happen? I thought it was common sense that actual MPG figures depend on driving style and the condition of the vehicle. How was that not considered at all? It makes no sense...

How the hell is $9,867 anywhere near "justice" for not getting exactly 50 MPG? Holy crap, I wouldn't pay any more than a single tank of gas.

Agreed. I feel like you would have to prove that you aren't driving around by treating the gas pedal as an on-off switch for this sort of thing to fly. Unless cars have a super detailed black box, I don't see how you could prove that you were driving the car in a reasonable manner.

 

That said, maybe this will encourage companies to try and produce more realisitic mpg figures, since quite frankly, their all fantasy anyway and the best you can hope for is that they all off by the same amount so the comparisons are still valid.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising.

We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place.

 

Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

Would you be willing to buy a box of tissues that somebody has already opened and used 2 tissues for the same price as an unopened box? Of course not. For the same price you might as well just be getting it new anyways.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising.

We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place.

What are you talking about? Are people too stupid to know how fuel economy even works?

 

Mabye it's due to the fact that i'm a car guy, but after driving for a while, you should know the difference in fuel economy when you're driving aggressively or haven't maintained your car.

 

SHE should be held liable for wasting peoples time with her lack of common sense. This is free money for being stupid.

Agreed. I feel like you would have to prove that you aren't driving around by treating the gas pedal as an on-off switch for this sort of thing to fly. Unless cars have a super detailed black box, I don't see how you could prove that you were driving the car in a reasonable manner.

 

That said, maybe this will encourage companies to try and produce more realisitic mpg figures, since quite frankly, their all fantasy anyway and the best you can hope for is that they all off by the same amount so the comparisons are still valid.

Most of these figures are EPA ratings, which aren't created by the companies at all.

So car companies will probably have to be more realistic with their MPG estimates... I don't see why this is bad.

The only way that this is a legitimate claim is if the car was practically new and it was tested under ideal conditions and couldn't reach the 50 mpg mark. Otherwise poor conditions, lack of maintenance or just being a shitty driver could all be the issue. If there was a legitimate defect that caused the car to get lower than expected gas millage than I guess I'm fine with it.

American law is weird, it would just pass as a mere puff in most commonwealth countries, not taking into consideration the peoples reasons for buying Honda's.

 

Also, the article says it only works out to about $100 per owner, is it really worth it? Surely you could be doing something better with your time..

Aw poor Honda, spending 10 grand in their already dwindling coffers. :roll:

 

Good job to her. She may not be experienced in cars, but it's hurting the super corporations so it's ok in my book.

I think the fact there is a successful class action law suit of many honda customers BEFORE she filed her independant claim goes a long way to show it is not (as some are suggesting) a case of MPG being slightly off due to driving style and more a case of MPG being miles off with all types of driving.

Also, the article says it only works out to about $100 per owner, is it really worth it? Surely you could be doing something better with your time..

No

When Civic Hybrid owners realized that they weren't getting the promised fuel economy they started a class action lawsuit that Honda eventually settled for what came out to be about $100 per owner plus rebates. Peters refused the settlement and instead filed a claim in Los Angeles County Small Claims Court.

They were only going to get $100 each but then it went to the small claims court and she got ~$10,000

This is absurd. The stated MPG is usually the maximum/perfect you can get, right conditions with the right car. It's just like an MP3 player might advertise that it can fit 5000 songs, but in reality can only fit 4500 as some may be large. You wouldn't go to court over that.

 

This is people not knowing a thing about the subject matter (cars) making ruling over them. For all we know, these owners may live in very hilly areas, on bad roads and where there is very high wind speeds.

This is people not knowing a thing about the subject matter (cars) making ruling over them.

 

No it's actually a strict FCC rules about advertising thing that companies must adhere to thing.

This is people not knowing a thing about the subject matter (cars) making ruling over them.

 

No it's actually a strict FCC rules about advertising thing that companies must adhere to thing.

 

But the car likely can hit the advertised MPG if:

a) She drives correctly

b) The road conditions are correct

c) The car is in good working order

 

I'll use the MP3 analogy again. I can fit 5000 songs as advertised, but that's if I do things correctly. The same is for the woman and all the other owners, they need to do things correctly.

 

There is no single MPG that a car manufacturer can give for a car. It can vary so widely that it is nearly impossible to do. If you were to be going full speed, up a hill in gale force wind, the MPG would be extremely low for example, whereas driving correctly on a flat surface in no wind will likely get you to the 50MPG mark. Just because she didn't drive it in the right conditions doesn't mean the company should be liable. They are going to advertise the best possible MPG for their car, it would be idiotic for them to do otherwise.

Just because she didn't drive it in the right conditions doesn't mean the company should be liable.

 

You have massive assumptionitis.

The article says "nowhere near 50 MPG". She didn't go to court because she only got 49, but because it was a lot less. And to think that you are smart enough to figure this out but the judge isn't, is really far-fetched. I mean, *I* know that and I'm really not an expert with cars.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising.

We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place.

 

Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

Yeah. I don't mind this court case. It seems trivial, but if it helps enforce truth in advertising, I'm for it.

 

EDIT: What kim said. For all you know this car was getting 25 MPG. Yet everyone assumes it was getting 49.5...

The car could get as low as 10MPG in the right conditions, but that still wouldn't be the fault of the car company.

 

Looking at a different article on the matter which is much more informative and gives the view of Honda:

 

"American Honda believes that the judgment in this case is a radical and unprecedented departure from California and federal law," the automaker said in a statement.

 

"The court stated in error that advertising (Environmental Protection Agency) fuel economy estimates is misleading unless the advertising also explains the effects of stop-and-go driving and the use of air conditioning. In fact, federal law does not permit states or state courts to impose additional requirements of this kind," Honda said.

 

"Thus, a Honda advertisement that accurately referenced EPA mileage estimates, truthfully stated that a driver can get 'up to 50 mpg' and carefully noted that mileage will vary is not misleading as a matter of law,"Honda said.

 

As it did in the trial, Honda said the federally required window label that was on the vehicle when Peters bought the Civic said mileage would vary depending upon a number of factors including options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle condition.

 

"Those factors affect gas mileage for every car on the road today, hybrid or not. American Honda'sadvertising regarding fuel economy of Civic hybrids was accurate when the vehicles were sold and remains accurate today," Honda said.

 

Honda do not and have never claimed that she would reach 50MPG, but that it could if she drove it perfectly and in the right conditions. And it was not even Honda who came to that conclusion, but the EPA who did, a separate body altogether.

 

And on the woman herself, she comes accross as an annoying [bleep] who is just trying to get at a big company. If you go to the website she has set up, it allows you to send what are basically spam emails to Honda through it. Because of that, I cannot see any sincerity in her whatsoever.

 

Statement from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., regarding small claims trial in Torrance, CA 1/3/2012:

 

In the six years since Ms. Peters first purchased her vehicle in 2006, she never contacted Honda to complain or express any type of concern with her vehicles fuel economy until sending a letter in late November, 2011 and then filing suit shortly thereafter. Once the suit was filed, Honda immediately offered to inspect her vehicle and work with her on the findings, but those offers were rejected by Ms. Peters.

 

We do not believe Ms. Peters was deceived. The window sticker that was attached to her vehicle (as required by federal law) clearly indicated that her mileage would vary depending on driving conditions, options, vehicle condition and other factors. The evidence today demonstrated that the fuel estimates that were used for the Civic Hybrid were generated in strict compliance with federal regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Honda used those estimates in all of its advertising as it was required to do by federal law.

 

She owned it for 6 years, and then refused to have it inspected. It is no wonder it had less MPG, it is again, idiotic to think otherwise. I would hope Honda appeals and she has to pay them back for loss of reputation and time wasting.

The thing is everyone is fixating on the one woman, but it's NOT one woman. She filed a separate claim after LOTS of people one a class action suit for the same reason.

The clear implication being it CANNOT be the circumstance of how it is driven as lots of people have the same complaint.

 

I should think under the test conditions which they use to come up with MPG ratings the Honda was shown to not do the claimed 50 MPG, after a lot of people all raised the same issue of not getting anywhere near 50 MPG.

The thing is everyone is fixating on the one woman, but it's NOT one woman. She filed a separate claim after LOTS of people one a class action suit for the same reason.

The clear implication being it CANNOT be the circumstance of how it is driven as lots of people have the same complaint.

 

I should think under the test conditions which they use to come up with MPG ratings the Honda was shown to not do the claimed 50 MPG, after a lot of people all raised the same issue of not getting anywhere near 50 MPG.

 

I would consider that however, I don't have the facts on that case so all I can talk about is her case, which in my opinion and from the facts I have seen is bogus.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising.

We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place.

 

Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

Yeah. I don't mind this court case. It seems trivial, but if it helps enforce truth in advertising, I'm for it.

 

EDIT: What kim said. For all you know this car was getting 25 MPG. Yet everyone assumes it was getting 49.5...

 

She could have easily been getting 25MPG, someone else could easily get 45MPG with the same car. Maintenance and driving habits can make a huge difference. If I blast the aircon on full in my little car I can use up to twice the amount of fuel over the same distance. Would I go and sue Mazda because my car would not get anywhere near the advertised MPG due to my driving habits, and then go and refuse to have it checked up so any faults that would cause a drop could be rectified? No. This woman shouldn't have either.

The thing is everyone is fixating on the one woman, but it's NOT one woman. She filed a separate claim after LOTS of people one a class action suit for the same reason.

The clear implication being it CANNOT be the circumstance of how it is driven as lots of people have the same complaint.

 

I should think under the test conditions which they use to come up with MPG ratings the Honda was shown to not do the claimed 50 MPG, after a lot of people all raised the same issue of not getting anywhere near 50 MPG.

 

I would consider that however, I don't have the facts on that case so all I can talk about is her case, which in my opinion and from the facts I have seen is bogus.

 

The fact the class action suit was won is fact enough to have an impact on the 'her case is bogus' view. After all she was in the class action suit then opted out to get a bigger pay out, so her case must be as valid/invalid as the entire class action suit. Given the numbers of people involved in even a small class action suit gives heavy weighting in favour of there is indeed something wrong.

 

Besides we have no facts at all to go off that her case is bogus. That's ridiculously presumptive and bias given lack of facts about what has happened. The only facts we got is she won the case (as did the class action suit) and the case was about the car significantly under-performing on MPG; how does that give any extra proof to the 'it's bogus' claim than it does to the 'it's genuine' claim.

Because on her website she (or whoever set it up for her) gives examples and 'proof' of what went on in the trial, all of which in my opinion are not worthy of being tried over.