Eckerd's Columbia, Inc. v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Eckerd's Columbia, Inc. v. Moore

270 S.E.2d 249, 155 Ga. App. 4, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2431

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1980

Docket59815

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 270 S.E.2d 249 (Eckerd's Columbia, Inc. v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eckerd's Columbia, Inc. v. Moore, 270 S.E.2d 249, 155 Ga. App. 4, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2431 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This appeal is from a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in an action alleging fraud in the loss of five rolls of exposed film.

Upon returning from a European trip, the plaintiff took the film *5 to the defendant’s store and, as she surrendered her film for processing, informed the clerk that the pictures were very precious to her. The clerk responded, “Oh, don’t worry, we never lose any film.” The receipts for her film had imprinted on them the words, “Responsibility for loss or damages limited to cost of film before exposure.” The plaintiff argued that the defendant was guilty of fraud in concealing that her film would not be processed locally but would necessarily be twice entrusted to the “notorious inefficiency and incompetence” of the United States Postal Service. The jury awarded her $10 general damages and $3,500 punitive damages. Defendant enumerates as error, among others, the refusal of the trial court to grant its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held:

Argued May 7, 1980 Decided June 17, 1980. David L. G. King, Jr., for appellant. William Carlisle, for appellee.

1. “To recover in tort for fraud the plaintiff must prove five essential elements: (1) That the defendant made the representations; (2) that at the time he knew they were false; (3) that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff relied on the representations; (5) that the plaintiff sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of their having been made.” Martin Burks Chevrolet v. McMichen, 136 Ga. App. 845, 847 (222 SE2d 633) (1975). In the case before us the plaintiff offered no evidence to support a conclusion that the clerk’s statement, “we never lose any film,” was false or that, if false, the clerk knew it was false. As far as the record in this case is concerned, the plaintiff’s may have been the first film the defendant ever lost. Thus, the jury had no basis for finding that the statement was fraudulently made.

2. In addition to the statement of the clerk, discussed above, plaintiff based her claim on the failure of this same employee to disclose to her that the film would be sent away for processing. However, there was no evidence establishing the location where the film was developed. Thus, there was no basis for a conclusion that the film was lost in the mail.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Judge.

This appeal is from a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in an action alleging fraud in the loss of five rolls of exposed film.

Upon returning from a European trip, the plaintiff took the film *5 to the defendant’s store and, as she surrendered her film for processing, informed the clerk that the pictures were very precious to her. The clerk responded, “Oh, don’t worry, we never lose any film.” The receipts for her film had imprinted on them the words, “Responsibility for loss or damages limited to cost of film before exposure.” The plaintiff argued that the defendant was guilty of fraud in concealing that her film would not be processed locally but would necessarily be twice entrusted to the “notorious inefficiency and incompetence” of the United States Postal Service. The jury awarded her $10 general damages and $3,500 punitive damages. Defendant enumerates as error, among others, the refusal of the trial court to grant its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held:

Argued May 7, 1980 Decided June 17, 1980. David L. G. King, Jr., for appellant. William Carlisle, for appellee.

1. “To recover in tort for fraud the plaintiff must prove five essential elements: (1) That the defendant made the representations; (2) that at the time he knew they were false; (3) that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff relied on the representations; (5) that the plaintiff sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of their having been made.” Martin Burks Chevrolet v. McMichen, 136 Ga. App. 845, 847 (222 SE2d 633) (1975). In the case before us the plaintiff offered no evidence to support a conclusion that the clerk’s statement, “we never lose any film,” was false or that, if false, the clerk knew it was false. As far as the record in this case is concerned, the plaintiff’s may have been the first film the defendant ever lost. Thus, the jury had no basis for finding that the statement was fraudulently made.

2. In addition to the statement of the clerk, discussed above, plaintiff based her claim on the failure of this same employee to disclose to her that the film would be sent away for processing. However, there was no evidence establishing the location where the film was developed. Thus, there was no basis for a conclusion that the film was lost in the mail.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 S.E.2d 249, 155 Ga. App. 4, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckerds-columbia-inc-v-moore-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack