Court Opinion

ID: 9785689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:16:18.038074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:31.782999
License: Public Domain

RAPP, P.J.,
dissenting.
T1 It would appear Defendant was Plaintiff's agent and, at best, an accommodation party or strawman between two of its employees-both car salesmen familiar with the business of buying and selling vehicles-to enable Plaintiff's agent to obtain cheaper financing in the purchase of an automobile from the employee originally owning the ve*74hicle. This case verifies the old saying that no good deed goes unpunished. As a car salesman, Plaintiff was knowledgeable of the intricacies of buying and selling vehicles and, here, used the Defendant employer as a foil with deep pockets to cover his own negli-genee in failing to investigate or discover any title defects and failing to mitigate damages. He asserted Defendant made a profit and that this profit then raised a question of fact as to its status, forgetting that an agent is allowed a profit for its activities.
T2 I would hold the jury disregarded its instructions under Defendant's defense of special circumstances. The damages awarded are ridiculous and appear to be given as a prejudicial bias against car dealers. I would also hold that under State ex rel. Jones v. Baggett, 1999 OK 68, ¶ 12, n. 5, 990 P.2d 285, 240, n. 5, Defendant's allegation of irregularity in its motion for new trial was sufficient to inform Plaintiff, the trial court, and this Court of its defense. Thus, I would hold the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial.