Burdakin v. Hub Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 74638,74638
• Citation: Burdakin v. Hub Motor Co., 357 S.E.2d 839, 183 Ga.App. 90 (Ga. App. 1987)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: BURDAKIN v. HUB MOTOR COMPANY.

Page 839

357 S.E.2d 839

183 Ga.App. 90

BURDAKIN v. HUB MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 74638.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 13, 1987.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1987.

Certiorari Denied July 10, 1987.

Albert R. Sacks, Richard T. Taylor, Decatur, for appellant.

Glenn Scott Bass, Atlanta, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

John Burdakin brought suit against Hub Motor Company (Hub) for performing negligent repairs to the undercarriage of his truck and also alleged a violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practice Act (FBPA), OCGA § 10-1-390 et seq. Hub was granted a motion for partial summary judgment on Count 1 which alleged the violation of the FBPA and Burdakin appeals. Held:

Burdakin's 1978 General Motors "Jimmy" truck was involved in a collision which resulted in extensive damage to its undercarriage including the frame, and was taken to Hub's body shop for repairs. After the work was completed, a Hub employee discovered that the truck was unsafe to test drive because the rear brakes were bad. Burdakin was informed of the brake problem, but instructed Hub not to repair them. Because of problems appellant had in receiving a check for the repairs from the insurance company handling the claim, appellant did not pick up his vehicle for five months after the repairs were completed. He claims that he had no problems with the brakes while driving home, but that it was very difficult to steer and control. Approximately two days later, he notified the body shop manager of the problem and the manager told him to bring it back for inspection so that any necessary repairs could be made. Burdakin claims he had earlier been ordered off Hub's property by its vice-president because of a dispute over his delay in picking up the truck and requested the body shop manager to pick it up. The manager denies this assertion. Approximately two months later, appellant sent Hub a letter demanding that the vehicle be picked up for repairs. The body shop manager replied by telephone and Burdakin referred him to his attorney.

In opposition to appellee's motion for summary judgment, appellant filed the affidavit of an expert witness, an engineer, who inspected the truck and determined that it had been improperly repaired, that the defects rendered it "extremely unsafe and dangerous to operate," that the defects were patent in nature and readily discoverable by a routine visual examination, and that a person responsible for the repairs to the undercarriage would not need to test drive the vehicle to determine that the repairs were defective and incomplete.

Burdakin contends that Hub violated the FBPA by improperly repairing his vehicle, knowingly transferring a dangerous vehicle back to him while representing that it had been properly repaired, and in failing to pick it up for further repairs.

The trial court found that the alleged oral misrepresentations involved essentially "a single private controversy." We agree and find that the trial court correctly held that the purpose of the FBPA is "to protect the public from acts and...