 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tucker v. General Motors Corporation9/24/1999
Ex parte General Motors Corporation and Ex parte Jim Bishop Chevrolet-GEO-Buick-Olds, Inc.
PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
Aaron Tucker sued General Motors Corporation ("GM") and Jim Bishop Chevrolet-GEO-Buick-Olds, Inc. ("Bishop"), alleging that GM and Bishop had breached express warranties and that Bishop had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. He alleged that, as a result, he had suffered physical injuries and sustained damage to his automobile. He sought damages for personal injury , medical expenses, emotional and mental distress, property damage, and loss of value and use of the car. The circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of GM and Bishop, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. See Tucker v. General Motors Corp., [Ms. 2960768, April 17, 1998] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).
The Court of Civil Appeals summarized its holdings as follows:
"As to GM, the summary judgment is affirmed as to the claims that GM breached an implied warranty of merchantability and an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.[ ] As to the dealership, the summary judgment is affirmed as to the claim that it breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. As to the claim that the dealership breached an implied warranty of merchantability and the claims that the dealership and GM breached their express warranties, the summary judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion." ___ So. 2d at ___.
We granted GM's and Bishop's petitions for certiorari review. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Although we re-establish in this opinion a rule of law that this Court had previously abandoned relating to the burden of proof on a movant for summary judgment, we do not apply the rule at this stage of the proceedings in this case, because to do so would be unjust.
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence in this case is quite limited. It consists of the plaintiff's deposition and his affidavit. The evidence, however, is sufficient for us to decide the ultimate legal issue presented: whether the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of GM and Bishop on Tucker's breach-of-warranty claims.
In support of its motion for a summary judgment, GM submitted Tucker's deposition. In opposition to GM's motion for a summary judgment, Tucker submitted his affidavit. In accordance with the standard of review for summary judgments, we must view the facts as stated in Tucker's deposition and in his affidavit in the light most favorable to the non-movant--Tucker. See Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So. 2d 412, 413 (Ala. 1990).
The facts are as follows. In February 1992, Tucker bought a new Chevrolet Camaro automobile from Bishop. GM manufactured the car, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") financed the purchase. According to Tucker's deposition, shortly after he bought the car, it began stalling while he was driving it. He stated that the car stalled at least three times per week. He also testified that he took the car back to Bishop several times to have the stalling problem corrected, but the problem persisted.
Tucker's deposition indicated that on February, 28, 1993, the car stalled while Tucker was driving it. When it stalled, he lost the power steering and the power brakes. As a result, the car left the roadway and collided with a utility pole. Tucker was injured in the accident. The car was repaired, but the stalling proble
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|