## Facts

- Kimberly G. Royster leased a new 1996 Toyota 4-Runner in Ohio, covered by a three-year/36,000-mile warranty.
- About nine months later, the vehicle began leaking red fluid and was towed to the dealership with roughly 10,129 miles.
- The dealership diagnosed a leaking head gasket; repair was delayed by difficulty obtaining the correct part.
- The vehicle was unavailable to Royster for 55 days while repairs were completed.
- During part of the repair period, the dealership provided a used Toyota Camry as a free loaner.
- After the head-gasket repair, Royster returned for paint and brake work; the brakes needed resurfacing due to disuse during the extended repair period.
- Royster reported no further mechanical problems after these repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer receives the rebuttable presumption in R.C. 1345.73(B) when the vehicle is out of service for repair for 30 or more cumulative days in the first year, even if the defect is successfully repaired after that 30-day period.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Royster.
- The court held that a consumer enjoys the R.C. 1345.73(B) presumption if the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more days in the first year of ownership, regardless of whether the vehicle is repaired after day 30.
- The court concluded the appellate court improperly added a requirement that the defect remain uncorrected to trigger the presumption.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 1345.73(B), a “reasonable number of repair attempts” is presumed when, within the first year, the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days.
- The presumption turns on the length of out-of-service time, not on whether the vehicle remains nonconforming after the 30-day threshold is met.
- The presumption is rebuttable; a manufacturer may present evidence to rebut the presumption, but a repair completed after the 30-day mark does not defeat the presumption’s initial application.

## Conclusion

Ohio’s Lemon Law provides a bright-line presumption of recovery once a new vehicle is out of service for repair for at least 30 cumulative days in the first year, and that presumption applies even if the manufacturer later completes a successful repair after the 30th day.


Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 92 Ohio St. 3d 327, 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001)