Mr. Transmission, Inc. v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 69257,69257 |
| Citation | 328 S.E.2d 397,173 Ga.App. 773 |
| Parties | MR. TRANSMISSION, INC. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ralph Greil, Douglas D. Salyers, Atlanta, Patrick J. Araguel, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
James A. Elkins, Jr., Columbus, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellee Thompson discovered that the automatic transmission in his automobile was leaking but operating properly. He took the vehicle to defendant-appellant Mr. Transmission, Inc., a transmission repair business, told them he wanted the transmission seals replaced because it was leaking, signed a work order, and left the vehicle with them expecting to pay their advertised fee of $69.95. When he returned some hours later, he was told to go back into the shop where he would be told what was wrong with his transmission. He found that the transmission, which did not have to be taken apart to replace seals, had been removed from his car and was disassembled. An employee told him that his transmission fluid was burnt out and there were metal particles in it. The employee pulled some slats from the parts and broke them in pieces. When plaintiff asked who had authorized the transmission to be disassembled he was told that the manager had. He was told that the transmission had to be rebuilt or replaced, that rebuild would take a week and over $300, and that a replacement rebuilt transmission could be installed more quickly at a cost of $377. To get his car back appellee had appellant install a replacement rebuilt transmission and paid for it under protest as he had not authorized it to be torn down. After using the rebuilt transmission for a time, it also began to leak. When he took it back to appellant for correction, he sat on a chair in appellant's manager's office which collapsed under him causing personal injuries.
Appellee thereupon commenced this action in two counts alleging in count one the unauthorized disassembly and destruction of his operating transmission resulting in the forced purchase by plaintiff of another transmission and prayed for punitive damages arising from appellant's acts. Count two was for the personal injuries arising from the collapse of the chair. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for appellee of $350 actual damages and $15,000 punitive damages as to count one, and $27,500 actual damages as to count two. The appeal concerns only the verdict and judgment on count one pertaining to punitive damages.
Held:
1. We find no merit in appellant's enumeration that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict as to punitive damages on the ground that such damages were not properly pleaded. A pre-Civil Practice Act case is relied upon by appellant.
The Civil Practice Act provides that every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings, providing the matter is litigated. OCGA § 9-11-54(c)(1).
"[W]here the facts alleged are sufficient to warrant the recovery of punitive damages, and a recovery of general damages is prayed, it is not a requisite to the assessment of punitive damages that they should be claims eo nomine." Mundy v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 106(5), 109, 232 S.E.2d 621 (1977).
2. Appellant asserts the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, made on the ground that there was no evidence to support punitive damages, was error.
"In a tort action in which there are aggravating circumstances, in either the act or the intention, the jury may give additional damages to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass or as compensation for the wounded feelings of the plaintiff." OCGA § 51-12-5.
Appellant argues that punitive damages were not authorized because count one was a contract dispute case, in which such damages are not authorized, and there was no evidence which converts the contract into a tort. We disagree.
Appellant presented no evidence and appellee's testimony is the only evidence as to what transpired. He testified that the transmission was working properly, although leaking, when he took it to appellant to have the leak stopped by replacing the seals; that he did not authorize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Porsche Cars, N.A., Inc.
...be "without the owner's consent ...." Caldwell, 341 Ga. App. 852, 856, 802 S.E.2d 835 (2017) ; see also Mr. Transmission, Inc. v. Thompson, 173 Ga. App. 773, 773, 328 S.E.2d 397 (1985). Here, the Complaint specifically alleges that "[t]he Update was transmitted to vehicles remotely and with......
-
Beal v. Braunecker, 74879
...Ga.App. 109, 113(6), 159 S.E.2d 776 (1968); Bonds v. Powl, 140 Ga.App. 140, 142(2), 230 S.E.2d 133 (1976); Mr. Transmission v. Thompson, 173 Ga.App. 773, 775, 328 S.E.2d 397 (1985). Ransone was not implicitly overruled in Moore because the Supreme Court in Moore did not purport to remove fr......
-
Hodges v. Effingham County Hosp. Authority
...conscious indifference to consequences." Battle v. Kilcrease, 54 Ga.App. 808, 809(4), 189 S.E. 573. See also Mr. Transmission v. Thompson, 173 Ga.App. 773, 775(2), 328 S.E.2d 397, and Dempsey Bros. Dairies v. Blalock, 173 Ga.App. 7(1), 325 S.E.2d 410. In the case sub judice, plaintiff prese......
-
Dow Chemical Co. v. OGLETREE, DEAKINS
...of others, or to the ordinary obligation of society might be drawn. (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Mr. Transmission v. Thompson, 173 Ga.App. 773, 775(2), 328 S.E.2d 397 (1985). Dr. Teitelbaum, a toxicologist, testified that the hazardous material on plaintiffs' property included car......