# Elmore v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · April 4, 2001 · 21 P.3d 65

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785689

## Case

- **Full name:** Chris ELMORE, Appellee, v. DOENGES BROTHERS FORD, INC., Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 4, 2001
- **Citations:** 21 P.3d 65; 2001 OK CIV APP 27; 2001 WL 279192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rapp
- **Judges:** Taylor, Colbert, Rapp
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785689

## Opinion text

RAPP, P.J.,
dissenting.
T1 It would appear Defendant was Plaintiff's agent and, at best, an accommodation party or strawman between two of its employees-both car salesmen familiar with the business of buying and selling vehicles-to enable Plaintiff's agent to obtain cheaper financing in the purchase of an automobile from the employee originally owning the ve *74 hicle. This case verifies the old saying that no good deed goes unpunished. As a car salesman, Plaintiff was knowledgeable of the intricacies of buying and selling vehicles and, here, used the Defendant employer as a foil with deep pockets to cover his own negli-genee in failing to investigate or discover any title defects and failing to mitigate damages. He asserted Defendant made a profit and that this profit then raised a question of fact as to its status, forgetting that an agent is allowed a profit for its activities.
T2 I would hold the jury disregarded its instructions under Defendant's defense of special circumstances. The damages awarded are ridiculous and appear to be given as a prejudicial bias against car dealers. I would also hold that under State ex rel. Jones v. Baggett, 1999 OK 68, ¶ 12, n. 5 , 990 P.2d 285 , 240, n. 5, Defendant's allegation of irregularity in its motion for new trial was sufficient to inform Plaintiff, the trial court, and this Court of its defense. Thus, I would hold the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785689. Public record. Not legal advice.