Court Opinion

ID: 9770186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:53:56.463007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.630879
License: Public Domain

BUTTS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The evidence establishes that plaintiff in this case received only a salvage title when he purchased the used Cadillac, knowing it had been submerged in water during a flood. He received no warranty of any kind, either for a new or used ear. The evidence showed that the car had been registered as a “totaled automobile” and had a “junk salvage” title only. The driver who escaped from the car during the flood testified it was totally submerged. He testified that after he crawled out a window, the car floated and then disappeared under water. In addition, the same car had been in a collision after plaintiff obtained it and that resulted in further damage.
There was evidence from experts and pictures of the car which established the existence of extensive rust and water damage within and without the ear. The electrical system located in the dash was damaged by water. The electrical window and door systems were damaged by water. The trunk area was shown to have been under water. A great deal of evidence of this nature was presented. Even the car seats were shown to have rust stains and water damage.
Although the plaintiff testified about a myriad of problems with the water-damaged car, it was shown that Riata did not perform work on many of those. It was shown that other automobile repair shops did some work on the car for the plaintiff.
A verdict was directed in favor of General Motors. The same attorneys represented both General Motors and Riata Cadillac. Many of the facts argued by plaintiff are refuted by the defendants who point to specific converse facts in the statement of facts.
The evidence shows the plaintiff admitted that Riata did work in a good and workmanlike manner and did the best they could with that car. The record reflects further that Riata did not work on several of the matters complained about.
Plaintiff sued both defendants under a strict liability theory. It is established law that his burden was to prove that the automobile had not been changed or altered since its manufacture or sale. Plaintiff knew the automobile had a salvage certificate of title, obtained by the insurance company because the auto was “totaled”. No cause of action against the defendants would lie under the strict liability theory according to section 402A of the Restatement of the Law of Torts (Second) since this product did not reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. In addition, Texas does not recognize this as a basis of the suit when the damages alleged arise from economic losses only. Further, no implied warranties arise with the sale of used goods. Here the goods were not only used but also damaged, a fact known to plaintiff. Under the warranty of repair claim against Riata, plaintiff would be required to prove the services were not performed in a good and workmanlike manner. Plaintiff freely denied this in his deposition, *540asserting that Riata performed repairs in a good and workmanlike manner.
The two cases cited by the majority, Donwerth v. Preston II Chrysler-Dodge, Inc., 775 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.1989) and Splettstosser v. Myer, 779 S.W.2d 806 (Tex.1989) do instruct the courts of appeals and the trial courts on the proper standard to apply: whether the totality of the tendered evidence demonstrates an arguable basis in fact and law for the consumer’s claim. In the present case it was demonstrated that this particular Cadillac which had been submerged in water suffered such damage to its electrical system and other vital systems fixtures that it could not be sold with a regular title. The title was a mere salvage title.
To file suit against General Motors and Riata attempting to hold them responsible for damages under the theories alleged when the salvage buyer knowingly purchased a damaged, used car meets the standard set out in those cases. There was no arguable basis in fact and law for the consumer’s claim in this ease. The finding by the trial court that the suit was groundless and brought in bad faith should be affirmed.