Case Name: Burl W. McCRANEY, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, and Creel Ford Company, a corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-09-06
Citations: 282 So. 2d 878
Docket Number: No. S-145
Parties: Burl W. McCRANEY, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, and Creel Ford Company, a corporation, Appellees.
Judges: JOHNSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 282
Pages: 878–879

Head Matter:
Burl W. McCRANEY, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, and Creel Ford Company, a corporation, Appellees.
No. S-145.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 6, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1973.
W. Paul Thompson, DeFuniak Springs, for appellant.
Angus G. Andrews, DeFuniak Springs, for appellees.

Opinion:
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Appellant-plaintiff appeals from a directed verdict entered by the trial court on the ground that appellant failed to prove . . any measure of damages by which the Court could permit the case to go to a jury."
On December 12, 1966, appellant purchased a new Ford Thunderbird automobile from Creel Ford Company, Inc., in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Appellant testified that from the date of purchase until more than two years later, the Thunderbird required extensive repairs. On cross-examination, this witness admitted that Creel Ford repaired the automobile a number of times and during such times furnished him an automobile for his use while it was in the shop for repairs. At 4:30 a. m. on February 16, 1968, the automobile burned while parked in front of appellant's home. The instant suit was filed upon the express written warranty and damages were sought for the sales price of the automobile.
Appellant insisted during the trial that he was entitled to the full sales price of the automobile, that being $5,619.03. This record fails to sustain any proof of the value of the automobile at the time it burned. Assuming that sufficient evidence was adduced by appellant of a casual connection between any breach of warranty on the part of Ford and the fire that consumed the automobile, the damages sought were not appropriate.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOHNSON, J., concurs.
SPECTOR, J., dissents.