Bennie C. Lewis v. B-N-D Garage & Towing, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-163

BENNIE C. LEWIS

VERSUS

B-N-D GARAGE & TOWING, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2007-6695
HONORABLE DAVID ALEXANDER RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Michael R. Garber
Attorney at Law
1801 Ryan St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 494-5500
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
B-N-D Garage & Towing, Inc.
Donny Wardrup

Randall Earl Hart
Attorney at Law
1301 Common St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 439-2450
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
Bennie C. Lewis

PICKETT, JUDGE.

The defendants appeal a judgment that awards the plaintiff damages resulting

from the failure of a diesel engine they installed in the plaintiff’s vehicle. We affirm.

FACTS

In October 2007, Bennie C. Lewis contracted with B-N-D Garage & Towing,

Inc. and Donny Wardrup (B-N-D) to replace the diesel engine in his 2005 GMC

Turbo Diesel truck, a street sweeper that Mr. Lewis used in his

parking-lot-maintenance business. B-N-D installed a remanufactured Isuzu diesel

engine ordered from Martin Automotive Group, Inc. (Martin) in the truck, but it did

not run properly. Mr. Lewis sued B-N-D and Martin to recover the cost of the engine

and other losses he incurred in connection with the engine replacement.

A trial on the merits was held June 17, 2009. Prior to trial, Mr. Lewis released

Martin as a defendant in exchange for Martin providing a mechanic with personal

knowledge to testify truthfully at trial as to the mechanical failure he observed when

he disassembled the engine and an expert witness to provide a truthful opinion as to

the cause of the engine’s failure.

Due to injuries suffered in an accident, Mr. Lewis was unable to testify at trial.

His daughter, Linda Lewis, who assists him in his business, appeared on his behalf

at trial. Ms. Lewis testified that Mr. Wardrup told her that he installed the engine and

drove it, but the engine “was knocking so bad he had to return to the shop.” She

further related that Mr. Wardrup told her that he was having a problem timing the

engine and that he would have to order a manual on the engine. According to Ms.

Lewis, Mr. Wardrup ultimately told Mr. Lewis that the engine was “bad.”

1

After being told the engine was bad, Mr. Lewis had the truck towed from

B-N-D to Martin. Martin determined through consultation with Isuzu that the timing

for the engine had not been properly set, causing the engine to be damaged beyond

repair.

Mr. Lewis presented the testimony of a mechanic and an expert witness to

prove his claims against the defendants. The mechanic, Jeffery Sonnier, an employee

of Martin, testified that he checked the engine after the truck was delivered to Martin.

In doing so, he rotated the engine over with a wrench which caused it to make “bad

noises.” Mr. Sonnier then testified that he turned the engine over with the key switch

but turned it off quickly because the “damage was already done.” At that point, he

removed the cylinder head and found that the pistons were badly damaged and that

the cylinder liners were missing.

Mr. Sonnier reported his findings to his supervisor, Walter “Butch” Benoit, the

service manager of heavy duty trucks for Martin. Mr. Benoit instructed him to look

for the cylinder liners in the base of the engine. Mr. Sonnier then used a drop light

to look inside the cylinders for the liners where he saw pieces of the liners on top of

the pistons. On closer inspection, he determined that cylinder liners three and four

had dropped in the oil pan, cylinder liner two was cracked but intact, and the top half

of cylinder liner one was half cracked and fractured. Additionally, he found a

fragment of a liner in cylinder one.

During examination by defense counsel and re-examination by Mr. Lewis’s

counsel, Mr. Sonnier explained that while there is zero tolerance between the top of

the pistons and the head of the engine, the liner fragment could have ended up on top

2

of the piston and caused damage to that piston as a result of the liners fragmenting

when the engine was still moving through the crankshaft, causing the fragment to

“bang the tops of the pistons.”

Mr. Benoit was qualified as an expert in root cause analysis of diesel engine

failures. He testified that in the course of his role as service manager he performs

root cause analysis on a daily basis to determine whether engine failures presented

to Martin for repair are under warranty. Prior to trial, he had been qualified as an

expert six times.

When traversed regarding his qualifications as an expert, Mr. Benoit was asked

whether he turned his root cause investigations over to manufacturers’ representatives

to determine the cause of the failures based on the information he provided them. He

answered, “No,” explaining, “I tell them what I am looking at[,] and I tell them what

I think our theory is of what happened[,] and they will either agree with me or

disagree with me.” He further explained that he had seen a failure like the one Mr.

Lewis’s engine presented but not on an Isuzu engine.

During his testimony, Mr. Benoit explained how a diesel engine works, noting

that some engines have cylinder liners, which Mr. Lewis’s engine did, and some do

not. He continued, relating that it is an industry standard for manufacturers to

reassemble a remanufactured engine as though it was new, hooking up fluid, coolant,

and oil then test running it before shipping it to a purchaser; the “hang on

components,” like the “turbo,” the fuel pump, the oil pan, and the injectors, are then

stripped, and the engine is cleaned and shipped. Mr. Benoit next testified that when

3

a remanufactured engine is installed in a vehicle, it is critical that the engine timing

be set.

According to Mr. Benoit, Mr. Sonnier asked him to look at the engine after he

had removed the head. Mr. Benoit described what he saw, stating “I hadn’t seen that

before very often[,] and we don’t see pistons that are so beat up and look so out of

place in a cylinder wall. It actually looked like they had the wrong size pistons in

there.”

Mr. Benoit took pictures of the engine, which he typically did with engine

failures. He pointed to one of the pictures, noting that it showed “a piece of the

cylinder wall [liner] on top of one of the pistons.” He explained that the piece of liner

was key to determining what caused the engine failure because it made him and

Mr. Sonnier realize that liners were not present in two of the other four cylinders. He

continued: “Either they had the wrong pistons in there or the liner was missing and

that’s when the light showed. You can actually see the broken liners further down in

there.”

Because of the unusual nature of this engine failure, Mr. Benoit testified that

he sent the pictures to Isuzu’s engineering department. He also explained that his

investigation did not reveal a design issue or design feature on the cylinder lines that

caused it to be more likely to be damaged if it was timed properly. Counsel for

Mr. Lewis then asked Mr. Benoit if he had determined what caused the engine to fail;

counsel for the defendants objected on the basis that Mr. Benoit’s testimony would

be hearsay because that determination was not from his own knowledge but

information he obtained from Isuzu. The trial court overruled the objection, noting

4

it was information Mr. Benoit used in forming his opinion.

Mr. Benoit then testified that after reviewing the pictures of the engine, the

Isuzu representative told him:

[T]his is a classic case of mistiming. You’ll see it every day. And he
explained to me further then that, “Butch, whoever timed the engine
didn’t time it correctly. Combustion took place on a brittle liner with
the piston way far down, too far, way too much combustion chamber,
and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

Mr. Wardrup testified that he has been a diesel mechanic for approximately

fifteen years. He denied that he test drove Mr. Lewis’s truck, testifying instead that

he started the engine in the shop and that it started knocking within one minute of

being started. Mr. Wardrup also denied having informed Ms. Lewis that he had a

problem with the timing for the engine. He testified that most of the cylinder liners

fracture due to the process used to install them.

Mr. Wardrup related that he did not start the engine until he had a manual and

that he followed the directions for setting the timing. He stated that he started the

engine, and it initially ran fine. However, within one minute of being started, it

started knocking at which time he shut if off. The fact that the engine ran fine for

one minute indicated to Mr. Wardrup that the timing was properly set. Mr. Wardrup

disputed Mr. Sonnier’s and Mr. Benoit’s testimony that the timing for Mr. Lewis’s

engine could be set such that it would fail, stating the timing could not be over-

adjusted and cause a major catastrophe.

Nelson Quier testified that he was part owner of B-N-D and had been a diesel

mechanic for twenty-six years. He testified that he assisted Mr. Wardrup with

installing the engine and that they had done everything “exactly according to the

5

book.” He disputed that the engine being out of time would have caused the liners

to break.

Dale Littlejohn who worked as a diesel mechanic for forty-five years testified

for the defendants. He testified that factory defects and something getting on top of

the pistons are possible causes of a fractured liner. He also testified that if the timing

on an engine is far enough off to cause damage to a liner, the engine would not crank.

On cross-examination, Mr. Littlejohn testified that the timing could not be advanced

enough to cause the catastrophic damage shown in the pictures of the Mr. Lewis’s

engine. He further testified that he had not been asked to examine the engine.

Mr. Littlejohn stated that a liner could be fractured by the manufacturer. He

was asked what effect a fractured liner from the manufacturer would have on an

engine. He explained that the engine “could crank and run a short period of time.

Then the heat generated by the fuel burning could increase the fracture and extend it

and then a piece [of the liner] break off and then you got damage” shown in the

pictures taken by Mr. Sonnier and/or Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Littlejohn gave other explanations for the damage shown in the

photographs. When asked if he had an opinion as to what caused the engine to fail,

he testified that he could not give an opinion without seeing the head. Later, he

again testified that he could not give an opinion on what caused the engine to fail but

qualified his answer, stating “other than it was something that quite evidently got in

on top of two pistons” and that it was more probable than not an engine defect as

opposed to improper workmanship by a mechanic.

6

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court ruled in Mr. Lewis’s favor,

awarding him judgment against B-N-D and Mr. Wardrup in the amount of

$32,788.79, plus legal interest from the date of judicial demand and all costs of court.

The defendants appealed the judgment. They now assign two errors with the

trial court’s judgment: 1) the trial court erred in allowing Mr. Lewis’s expert witness

to rely on hearsay to form his opinion regarding what caused the engine to fail, and

2) the trial court erred in relying on Mr. Lewis’s expert’s testimony to find that

Mr. Lewis sustained his burden of proof.

Expert Witness’s Opinion

The defendants complain that the trial court committed error when it allowed

Mr. Lewis’s expert witness to testify what he was told by a representative of Isuzu

regarding the cause of the failure of Mr. Lewis’ engine because the Isuzu

representative’s opinion is hearsay. They urge that Mr. Benoit’s opinion was “classic

hearsay” because it is “the opinion of an unidentified person at Isuzu” who could not

be cross-examined at trial. The defendants further urge that the expert witness’s

opinion is not his own, but the representative’s opinion.

Article 702 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence provides for expert testimony

when such testimony can assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in

determining a fact at issue. Article 703 further provides:

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases
an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to
him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by
experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the
subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Comment (d) to Article 703 specifically references inadmissible hearsay, stating that

7

it is allowable if it is reasonably relied upon by experts in forming their opinions.

The comment provides that it is for the court to determine whether such hearsay “may

be ‘reasonably relied upon’ in this fashion.” La.Code Evid. art. 703, comment (d).

Moreover, the fact that an expert’s opinion is based on information not personally

known to him affects the weight attributed to his opinion, not the admissibility of the

opinion. See Gagnard v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co./Assur. Co. of Am., 02-19 (La.App. 3

Cir. 6/12/02), 819 So.2d 489. See also, State v. Pooler, 96-1794 (La.App. 1 Cir.

5/9/97), 696 So.2d 22, writ denied, 97-1470 (La. 11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1288; Rowe

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 95-669 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96), 670 So.2d 718,

writ denied, 96-824 (La. 5/17/96), 673 So.2d 611.

The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection to Mr. Benoit’s relating his

conversation with the Isuzu representative, noting it was information Mr. Benoit used

in forming his opinion. In ruling, the trial court stated:

Mr. Benoit was recognized by this Court as an expert as he had
been recognized in other cases and he does engine failure analysis on
these type[s] of engines several times a day and this is what he does.
And Isuzu is one of the manufacturers that they deal with on a daily
basis that he has to contact on a daily basis in making decisions on
engine failure and the cause of the engine failure. . .

The court then noted that the defense could have had an expert witness examine the

engine and dispute the theory presented by Mr. Benoit but did not.

We find no error with the trial court’s allowing Mr. Benoit to rely on hearsay

to form his expert opinion that improper timing caused Mr. Lewis’s engine to fail.

Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit

Burden of Proof

The defendants next contend that the trial court erred in relying on Mr. Benoit’s

8

testimony to find that Mr. Lewis carried his burden of proof because it was based on

hearsay. While we have already determined that the trial court did not err in allowing

Mr. Benoit to rely on hearsay testimony as the basis for his expert opinion that the

defendants’ failure to set the timing on the engine properly caused the engine to fail,

we address this assignment of error out of an abundance of caution.

Mr. Lewis’s evidence consists of: 1) Ms. Lewis’s testimony that Mr. Wardrup

reported he drove the truck and the engine started knocking so badly he had to return

to the shop and that he then had to order a manual on the engine to set the timing and

2) Mr. Benoit’s opinion that the timing for the engine not being properly set caused

the cylinder liners to be destroyed and the engine to fail. The defendants presented

the testimony of the two individuals who installed the engine and Mr. Littlejohn, who

all testified that mistiming the engine would not have caused the engine to fail.

Mr. Wardrup’s testimony conflicted with Ms. Lewis’s testimony. He testified

that he did not test drive the truck and did not start the engine until he set the timing

according the manufacturer’s instructions as provided in its manual. The trial court

heard the testimony and assessed the credibility of these witnesses. It may have

completely discounted Mr. Wardrup’s and Mr. Quier’s testimony that the timing was

set according the engine manual if it found Ms. Lewis more credible than them. This

court cannot disturb a trial court’s decision that is based on credibility assessments

unless there is objective evidence that renders the testimony unreliable. Hebert v.

Rapides Parish Police Jury, 06-2001, 06-2164 (La. 4/11/07), 974 So.2d 635.

Additionally, the trial court’s reasons indicate that Mr. Littlejohn’s failure to

examine the engine prior to trial caused the trial court to discount his testimony.

9

Indeed, Mr. Littlejohn testified that he could not give an opinion as to what caused

the engine to fail because he had not examined it. Mr. Benoit testified that the engine

remained at Martin until shortly before trial and was available for inspection;

however, Mr. Littlejohn testified that he had not been asked to examine the engine.

We find no error with the trial court’s discounting his testimony for that reason.

For these reasons, we also find this assignment of error to have no merit.

CONCLUSION

The trial court did not err in allowing Mr. Lewis’s expert to rely on hearsay in

forming his opinion as to what caused Mr. Lewis’s engine to fail, nor did it err in

finding that Mr. Lewis proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs are assessed to

B-N-D Garage & Towing, Inc. and Donny Wardrup.

AFFIRMED.

10