Opinion

Carter v. Chrysler Corp.

  • 743 So. 2d 456
  • 1998 WL 771793
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Nov 6, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Crawley
On the bench
Crawley, Robertson
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

“[U]nder Hines, we note that neither the absence of a direct contractual relationship between Chrysler and the Carters, nor Chrysler’s distance from the transaction in which the Carters bought their truck, necessarily relieves Chrysler from a duty to disclose.”

How later courts described this case

  • “[U]nder Hines, we note that neither the absence of a direct contractual relationship between Chrysler and the Carters, nor Chrysler’s distance from the transaction in which the Carters bought their truck, necessarily relieves Chrysler from a duty to disclose.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

I agree with Presiding Judge Robertson that the Carters presented substantial evidence to support their claims of fraudulent suppression and negligence; therefore, I concur in the reversal as to those claims. However, I conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment on the wantonness claim.

Our supreme court has defined "wantonness" as "the conscious doing of some act or the omission of some duty, while knowing of the existing conditions and being conscious that, from doing or omitting to do an act, injury will likely or probably result. Bozeman v. Central Bank of the South , 646 So.2d 601 (Ala. 1994)." Alfa *Page 465 Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush , 723 So.2d 1250 , 1256 (Ala. 1998). The Carters presented evidence indicating that Chrysler had decided not to follow the procedures of Alabama's. "Lemon Law" and, instead, had agreed with the Alabama attorney general's office to institute a procedure to ensure that automobiles subject to that law would not be sold in Alabama. The Carters also presented evidence indicating that a clerical employee at Chrysler inadvertently omitted a notation stating that Chrysler was not to sell the automobile in Alabama, and evidence indicating that the Carters purchased the automobile in Alabama. I cannot conclude that this is substantial evidence of wanton conduct. Therefore, as to the wantonness claim, I dissent from the reversal of the summary judgment.

THOMPSON, J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.