 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McLean v. Bourget's Bike Works10/7/2005
I.
In June 1999, Mark Jay Scott McLean purchased a Python T6 motorcycle from Custom Cycle Works ("Custom Cycle"), in Nashville. The motorcycle had been manufactured by Bourget's Bike Works, Inc. ("Bourget's"), a manufacturer of custom and production motorcycles located in Phoenix, Arizona. Custom Cycle was not an authorized Bourget's dealer. However, Bobby Appleton, the owner of Custom Cycle, told Mr. McLean that the motorcycle was a 1999 model and that it was "roadworthy" even though it had an aluminum frame and was not designed for long trips. Mr. McLean paid Custom Cycle $35,260 for the motorcycle based on his belief that it was new.
Mr. McLean began to experience mechanical problems with the motorcycle after he purchased it. He also discovered that the motorcycle was not new after he saw it on the cover of a "biker" magazine. When Mr. McLean contacted the prior owner, he learned that the motorcycle was actually a 1997 Python T6 and that Custom Cycle had purchased it used from a Bourget's dealer in Chattanooga.
In December 1999, Mr. McLean sued Custom Cycle and Mr. Appleton in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. Based on Mr. Appleton's assertion that the motorcycle was new, Mr. McLean sought to recover damages for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. According to Mr. McLean, in September 2000, while this suit was pending, the motorcycle's aluminum frame snapped in two places while it sat unattended. In June 2001, Mr. McLean settled his claims against Mr. Appleton and Custom Cycle when they offered to purchase the motorcycle back for $25,000. Mr. McLean turned the motorcycle over to Custom Cycle after he received his money.
On August 31, 2001, Mr. McLean filed suit against Bourget's in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. He asserted that Bourget's design was negligent because the "weight of the motorcycle is too great for the frame" and that Bourget's had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act because the motorcycle was "not worthy of being called a motorcycle." Mr. McLean sought to recover damages "in excess of $15,000.00" for the "economic injuries" he sustained as a result of purchasing the motorcycle.
Bourget's responded to Mr. McLean's complaint with an answer and a multi-faceted motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion asserted (1) that Mr. McLean's claims were time-barred, (2) that Mr. McLean had committed spoliation of the evidence by selling the motorcycle back to Custom Cycle, (3) that Mr. McLean failed to state a products liability claim because he was seeking only economic damages, and (4) that Mr. McLean had failed to state a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted Bourget's motion on the first two grounds, as well as a third ground not asserted by Bourget's - that Mr. McLean had released Bourget's from liability based on the release he signed when he settled with Mr. Appleton and Custom Cycle. Mr. McLean has appealed.
II. Standard of Review
The standards for reviewing summary judgments on appeal are well settled. Summary judgments are proper in virtually any civil case that can be resolved on the basis of legal issues alone. Fruge v. Doe, 952 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. 1997); Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993); Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). They are not, however, appropriate when genuine disputes regarding material facts exist. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. Thus, a summary judgment should be granted only when the undisputed facts, and the inferences reasonably drawn from the undisputed facts, support one concl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|