Opinion
SC 468/2019
08-16-2019
Galina KATSNELSON, Claimant, v. ORANGE COUNTY TIRE AND AUTO SERVICE, Defendant.
Galina Katsnelson, Claimant pro se Burke, Scolamiero & Hurd, LLP, Attn: Thomas A. Cullen, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant
Galina Katsnelson, Claimant pro se
Burke, Scolamiero & Hurd, LLP, Attn: Thomas A. Cullen, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant
RIchard J. Guertin, J.
INTRODUCTION
This is a Small Claims action by Galina Katsnelson ("Claimant"), against the Defendant, Orange County Tire and Auto Service ("Defendant"). The Claimant appeared pro se ; the Defendant appeared by Paul Tramontozzi ("Tramontozzi"), the manager and owner of the Defendant, and by Thomas A. Cullen, Esq. The Claimant alleges she brought her 2017 Hyundai Tucson ("the Vehicle") to the Defendant for an oil change, and after driving the Vehicle approximately 3,000 miles thereafter the oil plug came out on the highway and the engine ceased working. She had the car towed to a Hyundai dealership and paid $4,882.46 to have the engine replaced and for related costs. The Claimant is seeking $4,882.46 in damages from the Defendant.
The Claimant submitted her Application to File Small Claims on April 23, 2019; the Court mailed notices of this action on April 24, 2019 to the Defendant setting May 24, 2019 as the date for the trial. After an adjournment request from the Defendant's attorneys, the trial was rescheduled to May 31, 2019. On May 31, 2019 the parties appeared; the Court conducted a trial and reserved decision after the trial.
At the trial, the Claimant, Tramontozzi, and Richard Hopkins ("Hopkins"), a witness for the Claimant, all testified, credibly, under oath. The Claimant and the Defendant also submitted documentary evidence for the Court's consideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The credible evidence at the trial showed the following:
The Claimant leased the Vehicle at the end of 2017. On or about October 3, 2018, the Claimant brought the Vehicle to the Defendant for an oil change (at that time, according to the Claimant, the Vehicle had gone approximately 10,000 miles). Tramontozzi, who owns the Defendant as well as two other automobile repair shops, described the process by which the Vehicle's oil was changed: the Defendant's technician drained the oil after taking off the oil pan cover and oil drain plug; the oil drain plug was reinserted, tightened, and checked prior to reinstalling the oil pan cover and after oil was added; and thereafter the oil level was checked again to make sure it was good. According to Tramontozzi, once that was completed, the Defendant's technician ran the Vehicle to make sure there were no oil leaks (and there weren't). If there had been a problem with the oil change, the Vehicle's engine sensors/warning lights would light up indicating something was wrong, and none of the Vehicle's sensors lit up after the Defendant's technician did the oil change, according to Tramontozzi. The Defendant's technician then put a sticker on the Vehicle indicating when the next oil change was due; the sticker (which was part of Claimant's Exhibit 1, in evidence) indicated the next oil change was due December 28, 2018 or 13,029 miles. Tramontozzi also noted that in his forty-three years of experience in the industry (including personally doing "thousands" of oil changes), he has never seen an oil plug back or pop out of an oil pan.
According to both the Claimant and Hopkins, between October 2018 (after the Defendant's technician performed the oil change) and January 23, 2019, neither the Claimant nor Hopkins noticed any oil of any kind coming from the bottom of the Vehicle, and they never noticed any oil drops on the ground or in the garage. The "check engine oil" light also never came on in the Vehicle after the October 2018 oil change until January 23, 2019, and there was no indication of any engine problems during that time.
There was no evidence or testimony indicating the engine warning lights in the Vehicle failed to work properly.
On January 23, 2019, the Claimant was driving the Vehicle on Route 17 in the area of Mahwah, New Jersey. While driving, the low oil light came on and the check engine light came on. The Claimant stopped the Vehicle, called a tow truck, and had the Vehicle towed to Liberty Hyundai in Mahwah ("Liberty") (the dealership where the Claimant leased the Vehicle). According to a paid invoice dated February 22, 2019 from Liberty (Claimant's Exhibit 1, in evidence), the Claimant stated the Vehicle's engine stalled and wouldn't restart and Liberty's technician "verified concern. Found aftermarket oil reminder stickker (sic ) Goodyear Tire and Service dated 12/28/2018 at 13029 miles. Inspect and found oil pan drain plug loose leaked out all oil from engine. Need to fill iwth (sic ) oil to proper level to dtermine (sic ) engine condition. Tech filled oil to factory specification found engine failure and needs replacing .... Tech removed and replaced engine assembly. Perform system scan. No codes detected. Road test" (id. ). The Claimant paid Liberty's invoice in the amount of $4,551.13. The Claimant also paid a towing bill of $127.50 and paid $203.83 to rent a car (Claimant's Exhibit 2, in evidence). The Claimant did not obtain any other estimates for the engine replacement.
According to Hopkins, the technician at Liberty recovered the oil plug that allegedly loosened and allowed the oil to come out of the engine . Hopkins also stated Hyundai wouldn't cover the cost to replace the engine as a warranty issue because the previous oil change wasn't performed by a Hyundai service center, but Hopkins admitted on cross examination that he never went to Hyundai directly and never received a written disclaimer of liability but dealt directly with Liberty about the issue.
No one from Liberty testified at the trial.
The Claimant also stated she did some internet research to determine if there were any recalls on 2017 Hyundai Tucsons like the Vehicle, but she was not aware of any such recalls.
Tramontozzi testified he did some internet research about 2017 Hyundai Tucsons and found one article related to engine oil leaking for 2017 Hyundai Tucsons (Defendant's Exhibit E, in evidence). That article related a similar incident where the oil plug and all oil came out of the oil pan, causing the engine to fail; the article also noted the oil pan may have been improperly sealed during engine production. Also accepted into evidence (Defendant's Exhibit A) was a copy of a letter dated February 27, 2019 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding a safety recall for 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucsons experiencing engine oil pan leaks causing loss of oil and potential engine damage along with Part 573 Safety Recall Reports from Hyundai dated February 5, 2019 and February 15, 2019 regarding the same problem.
DISCUSSION
The Claimant's action against the Defendant is grounded in a claim of negligence. The Claimant, in essence, alleges the Defendant negligently installed the oil drain plug causing it to pop out of the oil pan (after the Claimant had driven the Vehicle over 3,000 miles, and more than three months later), causing all the oil to leak out of the engine. As a result, according to the Claimant, the Vehicle's engine was destroyed and the Claimant had to have a new engine installed.
An automobile repair shop can be liable, based on a claim of negligence, for an improper repair of a motor vehicle ( 62 NY Jur 2d, Garages, Filling, and Parking Stations § 110 [2d ed.] [May 2019 update] [Note: online version] ). If the vehicle owner can prove the repair shop's work was inadequate, the vehicle owner potentially could recover the repair cost and related property damage (id. ). In a negligence action, however, "the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show with reasonable certainty that the alleged condition resulted from an act of the defendant. The plaintiff is not obligated to show that no other plausible causes exist, but he [or she] is required to prove that any alternative causes were sufficiently remote to permit the factfinder to base a determination in his [or her] favor on logical inferences from the evidence rather than speculation;" in other words, "it is incumbent on the plaintiff to demonstrate that it is remote that factors other than the defendant's negligence caused the [damage] [footnotes and citations omitted]" ( 79 NY Jur 2d, Negligence § 188 [2d ed.] [May 2019 update] [Note: online version] ). It is clear that "[t]his burden of proving causation always remains with the plaintiff; the defendant is not required to offer an explanation as to other possible causes" of the plaintiff's damage (id. ; footnotes and citations omitted).
A number of reported New York cases have dealt with issues similar to those raised in the instant action and have found for the defendant because proof of causation was too remote or speculative (see, e.g., Brightman v Hackett , 81 AD3d 1200, 1202-1203 [3d Dept 2011] [the plaintiff claimed defendant improperly replaced and failed to securely fasten the oil drain plug after changing the oil in the plaintiff's bulldozer; after ninety hours of operation, the bulldozer malfunctioned and became inoperable through loss of oil that leaked from the area where the drain plug was missing; the defendant testified the drain plug had been securely fastened and stones may have hit the drain plug area during operation; the court found the "plaintiff did not prove that possible causes other than defendant's negligence were merely ‘remote or technical’ (citation omitted) and, thus, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's negligence caused the damage to (the plaintiff's) bulldozer"]; Davis v Monroe Muffler/Brake & Service, Inc. , 50 AD3d 1544, 1545 [4th Dept 2008] [the plaintiff claimed his vehicle's engine failed two weeks after the defendant changed the oil on the vehicle; the court found the trial court's "determination that plaintiff's engine failure was not caused by any act or omission on the part of defendant is not clearly erroneous" and was not "a readily apparent deviation from substantive law"]; Beals v Voght , 12 AD2d 536, 537 [3d Dept 1960] [the plaintiff brought his vehicle to the defendants' garage for engine block work and other repairs; the plaintiff drove the vehicle seventy miles to Syracuse and then did not drive it for some weeks; thereafter he drove it to Albany where he experienced more engine trouble; a mechanic from an Albany repair shop testified the engine trouble was caused by a hole in the oil pan but did not establish the defendants' work caused the problem; the court stated "[w]hen or how the hole in the pan of the automobile was caused is a sheer guess and the plaintiff failed to prove any facts sufficient to sustain the cause of action set forth in his complaint;" trial court decision for the defendants unanimously affirmed]; see also Rivera v Adinolfi , 249 AD2d 55, 57 [1st Dept 1998] [plaintiff, on October 19, 1991, slipped and fell in the bathroom in his apartment due to loose tiles caused by water leaking from the ceiling and sued the building's owners; the owners brought a third-party action for negligent work against contractors who, in the summer of 1991, fixed the water leak in the above apartment and repaired the tiles in the plaintiff's bathroom; the court noted the "substantial lapse of time between the defendants' repair work in the upstairs apartment and the plaintiff's fall" and "no proof of causation as to either third-party defendant;" the court further noted "the allegations of negligence and causation are based entirely on speculation, and may not be reasonably inferred;" judgment for third-party defendants]; State of New York v Tarrytown Corporate Center II , 208 AD2d 1009, 1011 [3d Dept 1994] [third-party defendant installed an underground oil storage tank on the defendant's property; oil leaked from the tank and contaminated the soil; the contamination was discovered more than four years after installation of the tank; the court stated there was "nothing in the record which would rule out intervening events as possible causes of the leak," and the court noted several possible, alternative intervening causes; as a result, the court noted the determination of the lower court that the party who installed the tank was liable for the oil contamination was pure speculation which was "unsupported by any evidence" of the installer's wrongdoing; summary judgment granted to the tank installer]; but see Driscoll v Long Island Lubrications, Inc. ; 15 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50668[U], *1 - *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007] [the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for an improperly performed oil change that caused all the oil to leak from the engine resulting in irreparable engine damage; the plaintiff had the work done on June 26, 2004 and that day drove approximately 130 miles, at which point, on the same day, the engine failed; experts testified at the trial, and the trial court determined "the loss of oil was due to defendant's improper installation of an oil filter on the engine, which was a direct cause of the engine failure;" the trial court found, however, that the proximate cause of the engine damages was the failure of the car's oil and/or engine light to indicate a problem with the engine oil level; the Appellate Term found the "defendant's negligent installation of the oil filter was a proximate cause of the engine failure" and reversed the trial court's finding of no liability for the defendant] ).
The Driscoll case is distinguishable from the instant action. In Driscoll , the oil leaked and the engine in the car failed the same day as the repairs and after the plaintiff drove the car only 130 miles. The trial court, after hearing expert testimony, specifically found the loss of oil was due to the negligent installation of the oil filter by the defendant but somehow determined the proximate cause was the failure of the car's warning lights, which caused the Appellate Term to reverse the trial court's decision and award damages to the plaintiff.
In the instant action, however, the circumstances are more similar to the other cases cited above which refused to find the defendants liable due to the speculative causal connections. Here, the Defendant performed the oil change in early October 2018; the Claimant drove the Vehicle more than 3,000 miles over the course of approximately three and a half months without any issues; neither the Claimant nor Hopkins ever noticed any oil drips on the ground or garage or any oil under the Vehicle, and there was no indication the Vehicle's engine lights were not working, during that time period; the first time there was any indication of a lack of oil in the Vehicle's engine was on January 23, 2019, while the Claimant was driving the Vehicle. The Claimant merely speculates that the engine oil leaked out of the Vehicle because of the Defendant's actions; there was no credible testimony or evidence tying the engine problems directly to the Defendant's actions or proving other causes were too remote to be considered. As the Court noted in Brightman, the "plaintiff did not prove that possible causes other than defendant's negligence were merely ‘remote or technical’ ... and, thus, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's negligence caused the damage" ( 81 AD3d at 1203 ). To find the Defendant liable for the damages to the Vehicle would be nothing but "a sheer guess" ( Beals, 12 AD2d at 537 ), and the Court refuses to engage in that type of speculation.
The Claimant may have been influenced by the statements made by the technicians at Liberty who disclaimed any liability because the oil change wasn't performed by a Hyundai service facility (as noted by Hopkins in his testimony and by the reference to "aftermarket oil reminder" on Claimant's Exhibit 1). Hopkins also testified neither he nor the Claimant went directly to Hyundai to determine if the repair was covered under the Vehicle's warranty.
The Court, however, cannot ignore the reminder sticker placed on the Vehicle after the Defendant changed the oil in October 2018 (part of Claimant's Exhibit 1, in evidence); the sticker noted the oil should be changed by December 28, 2018 or at the 13,029 mile mark. The Vehicle incurred the engine damage and was brought to Liberty on January 23, 2019 with 13,563 miles on the odometer, almost one month and over 500 miles after the date and mileage referenced on the reminder sticker. One can only wonder what might have happened (or not happened) if the Claimant heeded the sticker reminder and brought the Vehicle in for an oil change in accordance with the recommendation contained on the sticker. That in itself, however, would be speculation.
--------
The Court, in this small claims action, must "do substantial justice between the parties" ( Uniform City Court Act § 1804 ). Under the circumstances of this action, and upon consideration of the testimony and evidence, it would defy substantial justice to hold the Defendant liable. The Defendant thus owes nothing to the Claimants.
DECISION
After hearing the testimony at the trial, giving weight to the credible testimony of the Claimant, the Defendant, and Hopkins, and reviewing all documentary evidence produced by the parties at the trial, it is
ORDERED, that the Claimant's action against the Defendant is dismissed, without costs, and it is further
ORDERED, that judgment shall issue for the Defendant dismissing this action in its entirety.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.