Alvarez v. Hemlani

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: November 30, 2012
• Docket: SD0444-12
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 3

4 GUELMY O. CAMACHO ALVAREZ, ) ) SMALL CLAIMS CASE NO. SD0444-12 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 ) MIKE HEMLANI dba LA TIRE & LUBE, ) 8 WAREHOUSE ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ) ) II ) 12 )

14 INTRODUCTION

15 The matter before the Court came on Plaintiff Guelmy O. Camacho Alvarez ("Plaintiff')

16 claim against Defendant Mike Hemlani dba LA Tire & Lube Warehouse ("Defendant") in the

17 amount of$4,114.40 resulting from Defendant's alleged negligent repairs performed on

18 Plaintiff's vehicle. A trial in this matter was held before the Honorable Benjamin C. Sison, Jr.

19 who took the matter under advisement. Both Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se. Having

20 reviewed the evidence and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision and Order.

21 BACKGROUND 22

23 Defendant runs a commercial establishment in the business of automobile tire alignment

24 and replacement. On or about February 8, 2012, Plaintiff brought to Defendant's commercial

25 establishment, his 2006 Mazda 3 automobile to have two tires replaced and for an alignment.

26 Defendant's employees drove the car onto a vehicle lift and lifted the vehicle to have the tires

27 replaced. After the tires were replaced and the lift lowered, Defendant proceeded to drive the

28 vehicle off the lift at which point in time a ripping noise was heard and the automobile's bumper was found to be touching the ground with visible damage to the grill and license plate frame and

Page 1 of3 pieces of plastic on the ground. Plaintiff provided detailed photos of the damage to the Court. 2 Defendant immediately sought to repair the visible damage to the vehicle and approximately 4-5 3 hours later, delivered the car back to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the repairs were only 4 temporary and submitted to the Court, estimates of the extended repairs necessary to restore the 5 vehicle to its alleged condition immediately prior to the time when Plaintiff delivered his vehicle 6 to Defendant's establishment. Defendant claims that the extensive damage to the vehicle was not 7 the result of any of its actions but the result of an accident that the automobile was previously 8 involved in, but improperly repaired. 9

10 DISCUSSION 11 After considering the evidence and testimony presented, and an informal investigation 12 conducted by court, the Court finds that the damage to Plaintiff's vehicle was not the result of 13 any actions by the Defendant. A negligence cause of action requires proof that a defendant 14 owed a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, and injury was proximately caused by the 15 breach." Siddons v. Cook, 887 A2d 689, 696 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005)(citation omitted). In this 16 case, Plaintiff fails to show by preponderance of the evidence that Defendant breached its duty 17 of care to Plaintiff or that damages to Plaintiff s vehicle was the result of any action by the 18 Defendant. Indeed the evidence shows that the damage existed prior to the time Plaintiff 19 delivered his vehicle to Defendant's establishment. 20 Plaintiff argues that when he brought his vehicle to Defendant's establishment, the 21 vehicle was undamaged as evidenced by a CarFax Report and government vehicle inspection 22 Form that he submitted to the Court. At trial, Plaintiff also testified that he was always the 23 owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was never involved in an accident. At trial and in their 24 trial statement however, Defendant submitted contrary evidence indicating that the subject 25 vehicle was in fact involved in a prior accident. In its own post-trial investigation, the Court 26 obtained expert testimony that the extent of the damage as depicted by the photographs 27 submitted by the Plaintiff, likely could not have been caused by any actions by Defendant with 28

Pa£!e 2 of3 respect to the use of the vehicle lift and the simple procedure of replacing the subject vehicle's 2 tires. 3

4 CONCLUSION 5 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of Defendant. 6

8 SO ORDERED this _ _ day of ,2012. 9

~eree 10

II

12 -- Superior Court of Guam 13

Page 3 of3