Fobbs v. Dan R.'s Automotive, Inc., 2017 Ohio 210

In Nov. 2014 Dan R.’s installed a used engine in a Dodge Durango for $3,140; total invoice (parts, labor, tax) was $6,590.47. The engine came with a 6-month/6,000-mile warranty with conditions including: reinspection, monthly fluid checks, oil changes, and immediately addressing any engine warning lights or driveability conditions.
In Jan. 2015 the vehicle overheated on I-75; the temperature warning light activated and Dorie (who was driving) called Dan R.’s and was told to stop immediately and arrange towing. Due to heavy traffic/construction he drove about eight more minutes to the next exit and parked.
Dan R.’s inspected the vehicle and found damage consistent with having been driven while overheated (likely blown head gasket, melted plastic and heat tabs) and concluded the warranty was voided by continued operation.
Dorie and his wife Regina sued in municipal court for breach of warranty; bench trial resulted in judgment for plaintiffs for the full invoice ($6,590.47). The trial court found Dorie’s decision to drive to the next exit reasonable and the engine defect covered by the warranty.
Dan R.’s appealed, raising three errors: lack of standing (vehicle titled to Regina), unauthorized practice of law (Dorie represented Regina pro se), and that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue on contract	Dorie paid for service, dealt with Dan R.’s, and was the injured party	Dorie lacked standing because the Durango was titled to Regina; only title owner can sue	Dorie had standing: he was a party to the agreement and paid for service, so may sue
Unauthorized practice of law	Dorie prosecuted his own claim; Regina was a named plaintiff but need not personally appear	Because Regina (title owner) didn’t participate, Dorie improperly represented her and engaged in unauthorized practice	Rejected — standing conclusion makes unauthorized-practice argument moot
Whether Dorie’s driving after the warning voided warranty	Dorie acted reasonably given heavy traffic/construction and safety concerns in reaching next exit	Expert testified a vehicle should be shut off immediately when red temp light appears; continued driving damages engine and voids warranty	Trial court’s finding that driving to the next exit was reasonable was not against manifest weight
Amount of judgment (inclusion of parts/labor)	Warranty covered parts and labor; invoice reflected total charge	Dan R.’s argued warranty should not cover unrelated parts/labor	Trial court credited testimony that warranty covers both parts and labor; award for full invoice upheld

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn, 142 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2015) (definition of standing and its elements)
Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo; Lujan test applied)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (articulates injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability requirements for standing)
Thornton v. Windsor House, Inc., 57 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1991) (only a party to a contract or intended third-party beneficiary may sue on a contract)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard of review explained)