Walker v. Crane
243 Ga. App. 838, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2274, 534 S.E.2d 520 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under former Georgia law, a wrecker service that tows and stores a vehicle in the good faith belief that the owner is known is not liable for conversion, as the statutory duty to notify law enforcement applies only when the owner is unknown. To recover for conversion where property is returned, a plaintiff must prove damages, such as loss of hire or diminution in value, that occurred during the period of conversion.
Facts:
- On November 8, 1994, E. H. and Donna Walker's tractor truck and trailer were stolen.
- Three men attempted to sell the stolen vehicle to Dillard L. Gabriel but lacked the title.
- Gabriel allowed the men to leave the vehicle at a location on Highway 19/41 while they supposedly went to Alabama to get the title.
- After approximately one month, Gabriel hired Crane Boys Wrecker Service, owned by Amber Charles Crane, to tow and store the truck and trailer.
- Crane believed Gabriel was waiting for the sellers to return with the title and therefore did not report the vehicle to the police as abandoned or stolen.
- The vehicle had already sustained significant damage, including a ripped-out dash and broken mirrors, before it came into Crane's possession.
- Crane stored the vehicle behind a security fence with dogs on a property where he lived.
- After Crane's death in January 1995, his estate located the Walkers and returned the vehicle and trailer to them in May 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- E. H. and Donna Walker (plaintiffs) sued Steve C. Treske, Administrator of the Estate of Amber Charles Crane, Sr. (defendant), in a Georgia trial court for conversion.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment against the Walkers.
- The Walkers also filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.
- The Walkers (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a wrecker service commit conversion by towing and storing a vehicle without notifying law enforcement, when it acts under the good faith belief that the vehicle's owner is known?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, Judge
No. A wrecker service which pulls and stores a vehicle in the good faith belief that the owner is known is not liable for conversion. The court reasoned that the controlling statute at the time, OCGA § 40-11-2(b), only required law enforcement notification 'if the owner of the vehicle is unknown.' Because Crane had a good faith belief that the men dealing with Gabriel were the owners, this statutory duty was not triggered, and his actions did not constitute conversion. The court noted that a subsequent amendment to the statute, which narrowed this exception, supported its interpretation of the prior law. Furthermore, the court held that even if a conversion had occurred, the Walkers failed to prove damages. The physical damage to the vehicle predated Crane's possession, and once the property was returned, recoverable damages were limited to loss of hire or diminution in value during the conversion period. The Walkers failed to provide evidence of the vehicle's fair market value at the time Crane took possession, which was necessary to calculate any such damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'good faith' belief exception under a former version of Georgia's abandoned vehicle statute, shielding businesses from liability for conversion when they reasonably believe they know a vehicle's owner. The ruling underscores the critical importance for plaintiffs in conversion cases to prove damages with specificity, particularly when the converted property is returned. Plaintiffs must establish the property's fair market value at the precise time of the alleged conversion, not at an earlier point, to substantiate a claim for diminution in value. While the statutory holding is limited by the subsequent amendment of the law, the court's analysis of damages remains a significant precedent for conversion claims in Georgia.
