First Court of Appeals in Houston
HOUSTON — The First Court of Appeals has affirmed a money judgment against C&C Auto Care-Saul Chicas for negligent damage caused to Robert Amos, Jr.’s truck engine.
According to the Sept. 15 opinion, in May 2020 Amos took his 2003 Dodge Ram 3500 to Chicas for diagnostic testing and was informed that the diesel engine’s No. 6 fuel injector needed to be replaced. Amos authorized the replacement and a few days later he was informed that the No. 4 fuel injector also needed to be replaced, which Amos authorized.
Days later, Chicas stated that he could not get the truck started and that it needed either a new engine or new heads. Chicas gave Amos a written estimate of $5,403 for a new engine and labor. Amos took the truck to a different diesel mechanic, who performed some repairs but found damage to the engine and advised it needed to be overhauled.
Court records show Amos sued Chicas for the engine damage and, following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Amos, awarding him $5,403 for a new engine, $5,403 for pain and suffering, and $5,403 for lost wages.
On appeal, Chicas argued the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s liability finding and award of damages for the engine replacement.
“Amos and his companion testified they saw two empty bottles of starter fluid in the Truck when they visited Chicas’s shop,” the opinion states. “Amos’s companion saw Chicas hurry to throw the cans in the trash. Amos saw damage to the injector housing that looked like Chicas had been striking it. Although Chicas testified he did not damage the engine, he admitted he had sprayed starter fluid in the engine and that he possibly used too much.”
Amos testified, and provided written exhibits explaining, that a diesel engine not starting after starter fluid was used means too much fluid was used, reducing lubrication and causing damage to the engine.
“We conclude this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support findings that Chicas negligently damaged the Truck’s engine, the engine needed to be replaced, and $5,403 was the reasonable cost for the replacement,” the opinion states.
Justices further overruled Chicas’ other two appellate issues, affirming the trial court’s judgment.
Appeals case No. 01-24-00080-CV
