Credit: Shutterstock
In a class action suit almost two decades long over a faulty brake system in a long-discontinued Kia vehicle, the Supreme Court reinstated a trial court’s decision that plaintiffs who lacked proof of actual costs incurred for repairs couldn’t recover damages.
In Little v. Kia Motors America, the court said “aggregate proofs”—versus actual costs—weren’t enough. Justice Anne Patterson said the plaintiffs fell short on their burden of proof, lacking evidence of what they actually spent on repairs for the faulty brake system, and the appellate court ruling left them open to receiving an undeserved “windfall.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
