Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lambert v. Ivan Leonard Chevrolet, Inc.
Citations: 584 So. 2d 490; 1991 Ala. LEXIS 666; 1991 WL 137347Docket: 1900827
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; June 28, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Daniel Lambert appeals a summary judgment in favor of Ivan Leonard Chevrolet, Inc. regarding allegations of conversion and breach of contract. The judgment, finalized under Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ. P., follows the recovery of Lambert's stolen car, which was towed to Ivan Leonard Chevrolet for repairs. Lambert claims that employees at the dealership removed parts from his car, including the horn button and brake light switch, intending to use them on other vehicles, without any intention to repair his car. In support of its summary judgment motion, Ivan Leonard Chevrolet presented excerpts from Lambert's deposition. Lambert could not recall signing a repair authorization or receiving a repair order. Although he stated he understood that the dealership would fix all issues with the car, he later discovered that no repairs were made and that they were waiting for an appraiser. Lambert noted that he did not inspect the car upon its arrival at Ivan Leonard's but confirmed that the horn button was intact when it left Kemp’s Garage. He later found the horn button was missing and claimed that the dealership had no right to remove it if they weren't intending to perform repairs. Lambert also expressed dissatisfaction with an employee's attitude during a subsequent interaction regarding the missing horn button. Ivan Leonard Chevrolet was instructed by Larry to have the plaintiff retrieve their automobile after an appraisal was completed, but no explanation was provided for the lack of repairs. The plaintiff expressed uncertainty regarding any monetary damage caused by Ivan Leonard and lacked knowledge about potential damage to the horn button. Lambert did not present any evidence in response to Ivan Leonard Chevrolet’s motion for summary judgment. According to Alabama case law, specifically Walker v. Southeast Alabama Medical Center, an adverse party must provide specific facts to establish a genuine issue for trial; failure to do so allows for summary judgment. Since Lambert did not offer evidence to contradict the defendants’ claims, the court deemed their evidence uncontested. Ivan Leonard Chevrolet established a prima facie case showing no genuine issue of material fact, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.