Scheffer v. Taylor , 2012 Ohio 1309 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Scheffer v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-1309.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MORROW COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WILLIAM SCHEFFER, JR. : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs- :
:
HOWARD TAYLOR, ET AL. : Case No. 11-CA-9
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 5911-2010-SC-65
JUDGMENT: Affirmed/Reversed in Part &
Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 26, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM SCHEFFER, JR., PRO SE CLIFFORD C. SPOHN
2750 County Road 169 144 East Center Street
Cardington, OH 43315 Marion, OH 43302
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On May 28, 2010, appellee, William Scheffer, Jr., took his motorcycle to
Edison Billiard and Cycle for repair. The repair shop was owned by appellant, Jeffrey
Taylor. The motorcycle had been previously altered to enhance performance.
Following completion of the repairs, appellee test-drove the motorcycle and paid the
repair bill. Later that day, appellee observed an oil leak so he returned to the repair
shop. Additional repairs were made.
{¶2} On August 9, 2010, appellee filed a complaint against appellant and
Howard and Scott Taylor and others not a part of this appeal for faulty repair work. A
hearing before a magistrate was held on September 21, 2010. The magistrate
dismissed the claims against Howard and Scott Taylor, finding they were not owners of
the repair shop. By decision filed May 17, 2011, the magistrate found appellant's repair
shop caused damage to the motorcycle and awarded appellee $1,300.00. Both parties
filed objections. By judgment entry filed September 1, 2011, the trial court overruled the
objections and approved and adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT LIABLE
BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT THE DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ALLEGED
DAMAGE WAS THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT."
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 3
II
{¶5} "THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT LIABLE
BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW ANY FACTS TO OPPOSE THE IMPLIED
BUT JUST AS LIKELY OTHER CAUSES FOR THE ALLEGED DAMAGE."
III
{¶6} "THE COURT MADE NO ALLOWANCE FOR THE CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF WHEREIN THE EVIDENCE SHOWED HE RODE
THE MOTORCYCLE AN ADDITIONAL FIFTEEN (15) MILES AFTER KNOWING IT
HAD A BAD OIL LEAK."
IV
{¶7} "THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT LIABLE
FOR DAMAGES TO THE MOTORCYCLE WHEN IT HAD BEEN UNDER THE
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF WHEN THE
ALLEGED DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED."
V
{¶8} "THE MAGISTRATE'S ASSESSMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES WAS
INCORRECT BECAUSE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF HIS MOTORCYCLE WHICH
HAD RUNNING PROBLEMS UPON ARRIVAL FOR SERVICE WAS NOT IN
EVIDENCE."
I, II
{¶9} Appellant claims the trial court erred in finding the repairs to the
motorcycle were the proximate cause of damages to the motorcycle. We disagree.
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 4
{¶10} A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be
reversed by a reviewing court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E.
Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. A reviewing court must
not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent
and credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v.
Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 1993-Ohio-9.
{¶11} The entire case was based upon the credibility of the witnesses. Appellee
presented evidence that the motorcycle was damaged as a result of the first repair and
the failure to put sufficient oil in the motorcycle causing it to overheat. T. at 15-19.
Appellant argued the repairs were done as requested and the motorcycle rode well after
the repairs. T. at 110-111. The mechanic who worked on the motorcycle testified he
did everything right. T. at 90-91.
{¶12} When faced with two conflicting views on the repair work, the trial court
was required to make a call on credibility. The weight to be given to the evidence and
the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison (1990),
49 Ohio St.3d 182, certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881. The trier of fact "has the best
opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something
that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415,
418, 1997-Ohio-260.
{¶13} Upon review, we find sufficient credible evidence of damage to the
motorcycle caused by improper repair work to substantiate the trial court's decision.
{¶14} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 5
III
{¶15} Assignment of Error III was not argued to the trial court and is therefore
denied.
IV, V
{¶16} Appellant claims the trial court's determination of damages was in error.
Specifically, appellant claims contributory negligence and valuation of the motorcycle
pre- and post-repair. We agree.
{¶17} In awarding appellee $1,300.00, the magistrate determined the following:
{¶18} "Plaintiff has prayed for a judgment in the amount of $3,000.00 for
damages caused to said motorcycle. However, Plaintiff is (sic) recovery is limited to the
fair market value of the motorcycle immediately prior to work being performed.
{¶19} "The Court finds that immediately prior to work being performed that the
motorcycle had a fair market value of $1,650.00. The motorcycle had motor issues prior
to Defendants working on said motorcycle and the motor issues would have affected the
fair market value.
{¶20} "The Court finds that the motorcycle has a value of $350.00 in the
condition after Defendants performed work.
{¶21} "It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Plaintiff is granted
a judgment against the Defendant Jeff Taylor in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Dollars ($1,300) plus statutory interest of 4% and court costs."
{¶22} Appellee also assigned the issue of damages as error in his appeal in
Case No. 11-CA-10.
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 6
{¶23} Appellee testified the "Blue Book" value was $3,000.00 for a motorcycle in
good condition. The magistrate concluded the fair market value of the motorcycle at the
time of repair was $1,650.00, and the value of the motorcycle after repair and
subsequent damages was $350.00 and therefore awarded appellee $1,300.00.
{¶24} Appellee submitted a total damage calculation in excess of $4,000.00
which exceeded the value of the motorcycle. It is undisputed that the motorcycle
presented for repair was modified from the original with non-manufacturer parts and
was not performing properly and was in need of repairs. T. at 31-33.
{¶25} There is no evidence in the record of any specific pre- and post-repair
valuations.
{¶26} Upon review, we find the trial court erred in determining damages.
{¶27} Assignments of Error IV and V are granted.
Morrow County, Case No. 11-CA-9 7
{¶28} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Morrow County, Ohio is hereby
affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to said court for a
determination on damages consistent with the evidence already presented.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ W. Scott Gwin _______
s/ William B. Hoffman____________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 307
[Cite as Scheffer v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-1309.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MORROW COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WILLIAM SCHEFFER, JR. :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
HOWARD TAYLOR, ET AL. :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11-CA-9
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Municipal Court of Morrow County, Ohio is affirmed in part and
reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to said court for a determination on
damages consistent with the evidence already presented. Costs to appellee.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________
s/ W. Scott Gwin _______
s/ William B. Hoffman____________
JUDGES