 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wallis v. Ford Motor Co.5/12/2005
has failed to allege actual injury or damages. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., supra; Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp, supra; Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labrotories, 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002); Ziegelmann v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., supra; Yu v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., supra; Briehl v. General Motors Corp., supra; Martin v. Ford Motor Co, supra. Furthermore, other jurisdictions that have allowed such claims to survive a motion to dismiss have done so because their deceptive trade practices statutes, unlike our statute, allow a private cause of action to recover any "ascertainable loss." Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 360 N.J. Super. 547, 823 A.2d 888 (2001); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). Once again, the ADTPA only allows a private cause of action to recover "actual damage or injury." Ark. Code Ann. ยง 4-88-113 (f). We therefore conclude that Wallis does not state a cognizable cause of action under ADTPA where the only injury complained of is a diminution in value of the vehicle.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court's decision to dismiss Wallis's class-action complaint under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The claims for common-law fraud and deceptive trade practices under the ADTPA are deficient because Wallis has failed to plead a cognizable injury as a result of the purchase or lease of an allegedly defective vehicle.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|