DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Jackson

The Court reversed the partial denial of summary judgment based on its decision in DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, A08A0870; A08A0871, A08A0872 09/25/08, 08 FCDR 3085 10/10/08.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Janeka Y. Jackson purchased a 1999 Ford Explorer from Metro Dodge, Inc., an authorized Dodge dealership located in Snellville. Jackson was unable to obtain a permanent tag for the Explorer because Metro had not paid off the prior owner’s loan on the Explorer before selling it to Jackson. Subsequently, Jackson filed suit against Metro and several of its officers, alleging that they were liable in contract and tort for not paying off the loan and thus failing to pass her good title to the Explorer. Jackson also named as defendants Metro’s franchisor, DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. “Chrysler Motors”, and Metro’s primary lender and creditor, DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC “Chrysler Financial”, and alleged several theories of vicarious and direct liability against them.1 The Chrysler Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court initially denied but later granted in part. The trial court also amended its summary judgment order to exclude the testimony of Jackson’s expert witness as evidence. In Case Nos. A08A1344 and A08A1345, the Chrysler Defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment in their favor on Jackson’s vicarious liability claims and on her direct liability claims for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with contract, conversion, theft by deception, theft by conversion, violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “RICO”, OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq., punitive damages, and attorneys fees.

In Case No. A08A1346, Jackson contends that the trial court erred in excluding her expert’s testimony; granting summary judgment to the Chrysler Defendants on her conversion claim; granting summary judgment to Chrysler Financial on the issue of whether it could be held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of Chrysler Motors under an “alter ego” / piercing the corporate veil theory; and granting summary judgment to Chrysler Motors on her claim that it could be held vicariously liable for Metro’s alleged civil RICO violations.

DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Jackson

The Court reversed the partial denial of summary judgment based on its decision in DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, A08A0870; A08A0871, A08A0872 09/25/08, 08 FCDR 3085 10/10/08.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report