Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 July 1978 |
Citation | 361 So.2d 113 |
Parties | James D. MATHIS v. JIM SKINNER FORD, INC., a corp., et al. 77-333. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas Coleman, Birmingham, for appellant.
John Martin Galese, Birmingham, for appellee Jim Skinner Ford, Inc.
Brittin T. Coleman and Walter J. Sears, III, Birmingham, for appellee Ford Motor Co.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a partial summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants. We affirm.
Plaintiff bought a new Ford station wagon from Jim Skinner Ford on August 20, 1976. The station wagon vibrated badly and, although both Jim Skinner and Ford Motor Company attempted over a period of months to correct the problem, it was never satisfactorily repaired.
Plaintiff filed suit against Jim Skinner and Ford on June 15, 1977. His complaint, as last amended, is as follows:
The defendants took the plaintiff's deposition and filed motion for summary judgment on COUNTS TWO and THREE supported by the plaintiff's deposition. By deposition, the plaintiff testified that employees of Jim Skinner told him the car had been checked out and everything was okay, "that it was in perfect operating condition and everything."
He further testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.
...Whether an automobile is "new" is determined by applying the "reasonable expectation" standard first enunciated in Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 361 So.2d 113 (Ala.1978): "Purchasers have a right to assume that new automobiles will perform in accordance with reasonable expectations and ......
-
Dodd v. Nelda Stephenson Chevrolet, Inc.
...was "new." In support of this argument, Dodd refers to the "reasonable expectation" standard first enunciated in Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 361 So.2d 113 (Ala.1978): "Purchasers have a right to assume that new automobiles will perform in accordance with reasonable expectations and in......
-
Purvis v. PPG Industries, Inc.
...for summary judgment must be tested by reviewing what the trial court had before it when it granted the motion.' Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 361 So.2d 113, 116 (Ala.1978). On a motion for rehearing, the plaintiff must show circumstances which prevented his presenting evidence to count......
-
Oliver v. Townsend
...negligently. "The trial court can consider only that material before it at the time of submission of the motion. Mathis v. Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 361 So.2d 113 (Ala.1978); Engel Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Triple K Lumber Company, Inc., 56 Ala.App. 337, 321 So.2d 679 "To like effect are the fede......