The Texas Court of Appeals has refused to reinstate a $25,236 jury verdict in favor of a service customer whose 2006 Chevrolet Equinox was hit by another vehicle backing out of a service bay.
The three-judge panel unanimously found that Millicent Edwards failed to provide evidence that Lynn Smith Chevrolet, in the suburban Fort Worth city of Burleson, was responsible for her injuries from the January 2014 collision.
According to the April opinion, Edwards was at the dealership for an oil change. “As she left, she noticed that the oil light was still on so she flagged down an employee. While they were talking, another car backed out of the service bay and hit her car.”
A jury found in favor of Edwards, but the trial judge overturned the award. The Court of Appeals also sided with the dealership, saying, “There is no evidence that a Lynn Smith employee … was driving the car that struck Edwards’s.” In fact, it continued, Edwards testified that she didn’t see a dealership employee driving the other car and didn’t believe an employee deliberately struck her Equinox.
A Fiat Chrysler Automobiles dealership in British Columbia must pay a customer 346 Canadian dollars ($248.63) under its “Drive Home Happy Guarantee” because a technician failed to replace the plastic engine cover on his 2014 Dodge Ram, the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled. However, the tribunal said Abbotsford Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram doesn’t have to pay the balance of Jessie Chima’s CA$1,746 ($1,254.65) claim.
Under the guarantee, customers who find their repair incomplete can have the store pick up the vehicle to finish the repairs. Customers also can use a loaner, have the vehicle cleaned and get a free oil change. The tribunal valued those services at CA$346 ($248.63).
The May decision said Chima had the Ram towed in November 2017 after it lost power and the throttle light came on. The store, about an hour southeast of Vancouver, made the repairs. But a week later, the owner noticed the missing engine cover, which the store admitted it forgot to reinstall.
Two weeks later, the Ram had a problem with oil in the coolant reservoir. The owner refused to replace the oil cooler. The store did install the replacement engine cover and cleaned the coolant reservoir.
His complaint alleged negligent repair of the first issue caused the oil cooler problem. The tribunal found the problems unrelated and said no evidence of negligence was presented.
It awarded Chima the guarantee benefits for only the first visit. By refusing to replace the engine cooler, he “did not permit a sufficient scope of work to fully address the problem,” it said.