Court Opinion

ID: 9580309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:57.747433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:12.277544
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring specially.
In his special concurrence, Chief Judge Sognier correctly identifies ordinary negligence as the only theory of recovery upon which the Thompsons could have proceeded at trial — a theory never clearly articulated by the Thompsons below or in this court, and only barely sustained by a liberal construction of the pleadings. Negligence being the sole remaining basis for the Thompsons’ claim against Hardy Chevrolet in Case No. A91A1601,1 disagree with the majority’s analysis in Division 2. What profit Hardy Chevrolet made on the sale of the warranty has no relevance to the negligence claim.
*508Decided March 6, 1992
Reconsiderations denied March 20, 1992 and March 24, 1992.
Kyle Yancey, for the Thompsons.
Gray, Gilliland & Gold, David S. Currie, for Hardy Chevrolet.
Joe O’Connor, for the Fallses.