Opinion ID: 1884898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: oustalet's appeal

Text: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Treadwell, we hold that it fails to show negligence on the part of Oustalet that proximately contributed to the accident. Caskey purchased the 1971 Ford automobile from Oustalet in February 1971. On a trip to Florida in August of 1971, Caskey first noticed the accelerator sticking. He testified that the car was running awfully fast, if you did not hold your foot on the brake at a stoplight, it would take off, I mean spin the wheels. He thought it was the choke sticking. Caskey did not take the car in for repairs, but his wife did on August 26, 1971. The work order in Oustalet's service department on that date shows an item, ck. acc. sticking lube $3.54. The accelerator was sprayed with a lubricant. Mrs. Caskey testified that the service man at Oustalet's said he would order a part for the accelerator and would send a card when it came in and they would replace it. Mrs. Caskey took the car to Oustalet in November and was told that the part for the accelerator had not come in and that it would be reordered. Oustalet's work order does not reflect any item concerning the accelerator other than that shown on the August 26 order. There is no proof that Mr. or Mrs. Caskey had any difficulty with the accelerator between November and March 7, 1972, when the accident occurred. Mrs. Caskey testified that the service manager for Oustalet did not say anything about whether the car was safe to drive, after she told him of the accelerator sticking in August. It is claimed that Oustalet was negligent because Mrs. Caskey was told to drive the car or that its repairman failed to advise her that it was not safe to drive the car until a new part was installed in the accelerator. In our opinion, any failure on the part of Oustalet to repair the automobile is too remote to constitute actionable negligence. We hold that the evidence fails to show that Oustalet was negligent in August, 1971, but assuming Oustalet was negligent, it was too remote to be actionable. We find no reversible error on cross-appeal. For reasons stated, the judgment against Caskey is affirmed in the amount of $7,082.80, and reversed in part as to $917.20. As to Oustalet, the judgment is reversed and the suit dismissed. The case is affirmed on cross-appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and rendered. PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.