Oliver D. Lambert v. Koenig Equipment, Inc. (mem. dec.)
35A05-1612-PL-2775
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Lambert hired Koenig Equipment to overhaul his tractor engine in late 2012–early 2013; Koenig subcontracted some work to Auto Tech.
- After the overhaul, Lambert and his son experienced persistently low oil pressure during the 2013 spring season.
- Koenig performed adjustments: sent a technician to check gauges, installed a new oil pressure relief valve in June 2013, then replaced the oil pump with a high-volume pump when tractor was brought to the shop.
- Independent oscilloscope testing by James Naden (at Lambert’s request) in Aug/Sept 2013 showed oil pressure within manufacturer specs.
- In 2014 Lambert had the engine rebuilt by Hill-T Farm, which allegedly discovered abrasive "blast media" (sand/ aluminum oxide) in oil passages; Lambert sued Koenig for negligence and breach of oral contract, claiming Koenig failed to clean contaminants during the overhaul.
- After a bench trial the trial court entered judgment for Koenig; on appeal Lambert argued the verdict was contrary to the evidence and some findings were misleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koenig was negligent (unworkmanlike performance) by leaving abrasive blast media in the engine | Koenig failed to clean contaminants (blast media) during overhaul, causing low oil pressure and damages | Evidence showed Koenig and Auto Tech did not sandblast, Koenig lacked sandblasting capability, personnel testified to customary cleaning, and intervening work could have introduced contaminants | Court held judgment for Koenig supported by evidence; not contrary to law |
| Whether Koenig breached the parties’ oral contract by performing improperly | Failure to perform work in a workmanlike manner (same factual basis as negligence) | Same as above; testing and subsequent repairs showed compliance with specifications and no proof Koenig caused contamination | Court held no breach proven; findings support judgment for Koenig |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to infer negligence | Plaintiff argued the presence of blast media speaks for negligence by Koenig | Defendant argued theory was not raised at trial and cannot be argued first on appeal | Court declined to consider res ipsa because plaintiff did not preserve the argument at trial (waived) |
| Whether trial court findings were contrary to evidence or misleading | Several numbered findings (e.g., no sandblasting by Auto Tech; hours used; later higher oil pressures) were allegedly inaccurate or misleading | Trial testimony and exhibits supported the findings; challenges invited reweighing of evidence | Court found the findings supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Kappel v. Kappel, 979 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for reversing a negative judgment and deference to trial court findings)
- Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for Trial Rule 52 findings and conclusions)
- Lanni v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 42 N.E.3d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (elements of negligence)
- Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC, 987 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (elements for breach of contract)