Dang, you beat me to it. I think you are right, she did get a lemon. But instead of going after just the dealer, she wants damages, suing the game show, CBS, and the company that delivered the vehicle. SHE WON A FREE CAR and now she wants more free stuff. Geez, just give her a car and tell her to go home.

They said they were going to give her a NEW car, and they didn't. They need to give her what they promised.

A car that is going to cost her even more money is NOT a prize.

Technically a lemon is a new car that isn't up to specs. So she actually did get a new car. This happened over three (almost 4) years ago. What took so long?

It was a Pontiac. She was expecting a nice car?

No, that's the way the law works. You have to sue everyone involved. Then all the parties file motions to dismiss, there are counter motions filed, then if there's merit to dismiss the judge does so. But this is because it's difficult to tell where the liability is sometimes. You need to file against all parties (which is why you'll see "John and Jane Doe 1, 2, 3, and ABC Corporation 1, 2, 3 on some documents) because the liability can extend to unknown parties. Law suits take a long time because of this and are very expensive but imagine if you had to file a suit each time you discovered someone new is actually liable...it's even more nightmarish.

Geez, I didn't know that. That is just ... well, just ... don't know the word. I sometimes think I would be a good lawyer, but these times make me think otherwise.

If the car was tampered with to cover a serious defect as was mentioned in the article then someone will definitely have to pay up.

Mostly (in this case) it's got to do with the contract. The contract between the contestant and the game show producers/station/whatever that was entered into and then the contract between the game show hoi-polloi and the car dealership. Then again, the car dealership can have a contract with a supplier so that's when they would do a motion to join (not sure if that's the exact wording...how soon we forget) but it basically asks the judge to let them bring in another party because that other party may have culpability/liability. It can be VERY complicated so a plaintiff's attorney just sues everyone (including john and jane doe and abc corp that way he doesn't need to file more papers) and then he lets the defendants do the finger pointing. Cuts down on costs to clients.

This only applies to civil actions. Criminal cases are very different.

Don't forget that she paid taxes on a car valued as new. Her tax was probably over $2,700.

There is also the issue of 'the blame game'

If I Sue ABC, they blame the Dealership and get off free. If I Sue the dealership, they blame the delivery company.. which you can't prove isn't true. If I sue the delivery company... they can say that it's ABC and the dealership and they just delivered the car.

Individually, they can blame the others.. But when they are all in court together.. AHA!

ABC blame the co-defendant dealership and the dealerships lawyers now get to defend against ABC's claim to keep their client off the hook. Now you have THEIR lawyers helping you to argue your case. Eventually the truth comes out and it's discoveed that it's the garage's fault for not inspecting the car properly. :D

Yep.