 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Petty v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp.3/13/2002
Mr. Petty purchased a new 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager mini-van in January of 1998. In May of 1998, he filed suit against the manufacturer, DaimlerChrysler, in Shelby County Chancery Court, alleging that the specific form of tempered glass used in the side and rear windows of the vehicle violated the Tennessee motor vehicle safety glass statutes then in effect. The statute provided, in pertinent part:
Safety glass in motor vehicles: - - (a) From and after July 1, 1957, no person shall sell a new motor vehicle as specified herein, nor shall any person register such new motor vehicle as specified herein after such date unless such vehicle is equipped with safety glass of a type approved by the commissioner of the department of safety wherever glass is to be used in doors, windows and windshields of such vehicles. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-208 (repealed Acts 1999, ch. 58, § 1)
"Safety glass" defined: - - he term "safety glass" shall mean any product composed of glass, so manufactured and/or fabricated as substantially to prevent the shattering and flying of the glass when struck or broken, or such other or similar product as may be approved by the commissioner of the department of safety. The commissioner shall compile and publish a list of types of glass by name which are approved by him as meeting the requirements of §§ 55-9-208 - 55-9-211. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-210 (repealed Acts 1999, ch. 58, § 1).
Mr. Petty prays for replacement of the alleged nonconforming side and rear window glass and for compensatory relief. He also submits that DaimlerChrysler committed a fraud by selling motor vehicles allegedly not in compliance with the safety glass statutes, and that this fraud constitutes a violation of section 104(b)(2), (3) and (5) of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-18-104(b)(2), (3), (5). In his reply brief to this Court, Mr Petty contends that he has sustained damages in the amount of $20,699.00, the purchase price of the van, since " he vehicle was worthless at the time of purchase, because it was illegal."
The chancellor denied Mr. Petty's motion for summary judgment and suggested that the case be tried upon the record as a whole and upon written submissions of evidence. The parties consented to this procedure, and on April 16, 2001, the chancellor issued a memorandum opinion finding in favor of DaimlerChrysler. The chancellor found that the glass in question met the criteria for "such other or similar product" permitted by the statute. Mr. Petty now appeals this judgment.
Issues on Appeal
On appeal, Mr. Petty raises eight issues for our review. These issues address the admission of evidence by the court below and the court's interpretation of the glass statute. DaimlerChrysler submits, inter alia, that Mr. Petty's claim must fail as a matter of law because there was no private right of action under the statute, and because he neither pled nor sustained damages. We agree with DaimlerChrysler that Mr. Petty lacked standing to bring this claim. The other issues accordingly are pretermitted.
Standard of Review
Our standard of review of the trial court's findings of fact are de novo with a presumption of correctness. Tenn. R. App. P.13(d). With respect to the trial court's legal conclusions, however, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Bowden v. Ward, 275 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
Discussion
Courts employ the doctrine of standing to determine whether a claimant is "properly situated to prosecute the action." Knierim v. Leatherwood, 542 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Tenn. 1976). In order to establish stan
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|