Downtime Rebuild, L.L.C. v. Trinity Logistics, Inc. , 2019 Ohio 1869 ( 2019 )

[Cite as Downtime Rebuild, L.L.C. v. Trinity Logistics, Inc., 2019-Ohio-1869.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
DOWNTIME REBUILD, LLC , : APPEAL NO. C-180157
TRIAL NO. A-1601504
Plaintiff-Appellee,
: O P I N I O N.
vs.
:
TRINITY LOGISTICS, INC.,
and
:
DDT, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part, and Judgment
Entered
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 15, 2019
Rebold Larkin Murray, LLC, Andrew J. Ferguson, and Kyle D. Murray, for
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Bruns, Connell, Vollmar & Armstrong, LLC, and Kevin C. Connell, for Defendants-
Appellants Trinity Logistics, Inc., and DDT, Inc.,
Faulkner & Tepe, LLP, John C. Scott, and Tracy Schwetschenau, for Defendant-
Apellant Trinity Logistics, Inc.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Trinity Logistics, Inc., (“Trinity”) and DDT,
Inc., (“DDT”) have appealed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas finding them
liable under the Carmack Amendment for damage to two CNC computer machines
purchased by plaintiff-appellee Downtime Rebuild, Inc., (“Downtime”).
{¶2} In two assignments of error, appellants argue that the trial court erred
when it found that the only evidence in the record was that the machines were fully
operational when picked up by DDT for shipping, and that the trial court erred when
it rendered a verdict for Downtime in the amount of $140,000.
Factual Background
{¶3} Downtime specializes in refurbishing and reselling CNC machines,
which are large machines typically used for cutting metal for automotive parts. In
April 2015, Neil Corbett, co-owner of Downtime, went to Nebraska to inspect two
CNC machines he was interested in buying from Garner Industries, which was selling
the machines in anticipation of upgrading to newer CNC machines. Corbett spent
the day inspecting the machines—he tested them under power and determined that
they were running well and in good condition. Corbett did not buy the machines at
that time, because he thought the price was too high.
{¶4} Roughly three months later, Corbett was contacted by a broker from
K.D. Capital, which had been hired by Garner Industries to sell the CNC machines.
K.D. Capital sent Corbett a video which showed the two machines under power and
running properly. Corbett testified at trial that he received the video in December,
but that is not possible since the evidence shows that he bought the machines in
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
October. Regardless, the video was not date-stamped, and Corbett admitted that he
had no idea when it was actually shot. Using the serial numbers, Corbett confirmed
that the machines in the video were the same two machines he had inspected
previously. Corbett asked K.D. Capital if the machines were still under power, and
he was informed they had been disconnected from power in preparation for
shipment to California.
{¶5} Downtime purchased both machines “as-is” from K.D. Capital on
October 5, 2015, for $140,000. Corbett admitted at trial that he did not know the
manner in which the machines were stored at Garner Industries between April and
October 2015.
{¶6} Downtime hired Trinity to transport the machines from Nebraska to
Ohio. Trinity in turn hired DDT, a trucking company, to complete the actual
transportation. To ensure the machines were not damaged during shipment,
Downtime sent specific shipment instructions to Trinity, requesting that the
machines be fully “tarped” during transportation, that the straps not be placed over
the tops of the machines, and that pictures of the machines be sent to Corbett once
they were loaded onto DDT’s truck.
{¶7} The machines were picked up from Garner Industries by Larry Adams,
the truck driver for DDT, on October 12, 2015. Adams did not notice any damage to
the machines as they were loaded onto his trailer, but he did not inspect the interior
of the machines. Adams testified that he never received the shipment instructions
Downtime provided Trinity, but that he knew from experience the machines needed
to be tarped. Nevertheless, he failed to fully tarp the machines or send pictures to
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Corbett once the machines were loaded, and the straps were placed over top of the
machines, all contrary to Downtime’s instructions.
{¶8} When Corbett pulled into the parking lot of Downtime on October 15,
he saw Adams’s truck and immediately noticed that the machines were not properly
tarped or strapped. The straps were placed over the tops of the machines and
significant portions of the machines were not covered by tarps. Corbett also noticed
that certain components were missing and that a piece of skirting was missing from
one of the machines.
{¶9} The CNC machines come with “chip conveyors,” components separate
from the machines themselves, which were packaged separately for purposes of
transportation. Adams removed the straps on the chip conveyors in anticipation of
unloading the equipment. Corbett informed Adams that he would have to back the
truck into the building for off-loading. When Adams started to back the truck into
the building, the unstrapped chip conveyors fell off the truck and were damaged.
The CNC machines themselves were later unloaded in Downtime’s warehouse
without incident.
{¶10} Once Corbett put the CNC machines under power to test them, he
heard the machines making troublesome noises. He took the machines apart and
discovered that the internal components were covered in rust. He concluded that the
machines were ruined and worthless even as scrap metal because the cost to turn
them into scrap would nullify any proceeds. Downtime submitted claims to Trinity
for the missing components, the damage to the chip conveyors, and for the CNC
machines themselves.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Liability Under The Carmack Amendment
{¶11} Appellants argue that Downtime failed to prove that the CNC
machines were delivered to DDT in good condition, and so has failed to establish a
prima facie case of carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment.
{¶12} The standard of review following a civil bench trial is whether the trial
court’s judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence as supported by
competent, credible evidence. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-
2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 12, 17. Under a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review,
“every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in
favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.” Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶13} When reviewing a trial court’s decision under a manifest-weight-of-
the-evidence standard, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the witnesses, and
determines whether the trial court “clearly lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice.” Fischoff v. Hamilton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120200,
2012-Ohio-4785, ¶ 11.
{¶14} Liability of a carrier for damage to goods during an interstate
shipment is a matter of federal law controlled by the Carmack Amendment to the
Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 14706. Missouri P.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377
U.S. 134, 137, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 L.Ed.2d 194 (1964). In order to establish a prima
facie case of carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment, a plaintiff must show
(1) delivery of the goods to the carrier in good condition, (2) arrival in damaged
condition, and (3) the amount of damages. Id. at 138. Once a prima facie case is
established, the burden shifts to the carrier to show that it was not negligent and that
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the damage was due to an excepted cause which would relieve the carrier of liability.
Id. at 137.
{¶15} The first prong, that the machines were delivered to DDT in good
condition, is the primary issue in this case. Appellants contend that Downtime did
not present any evidence to prove that the CNC machines were delivered to DDT in
good condition. They argue that this case is similar to Albert v. United Parcel Serv.
of Am., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 14-CVF-00784, 2016-Ohio-1541.
{¶16} In Albert, the plaintiff shipped a glass sculpture via common carrier,
but presented no evidence of the condition of the sculpture from the time it was
packaged and crated to the time it was dropped off at the carrier 84 days later. Id. at
¶ 9. The plaintiff’s husband packaged the sculpture and sealed it in a crate before
transporting it to his mother’s house for storage. Id. at ¶ 2. It remained there for 84
days before plaintiff’s brother-in-law transported the sculpture, still sealed in the
crate, to the UPS store for shipment. Id. At the UPS store, neither the brother-in-
law nor the store employee opened the crate to check on the condition of the
sculpture. Id. The sculpture was shipped by UPS and arrived damaged to plaintiff.
Id. The Eighth District found that where the condition of the sculpture was “simply
unknown” at the time the sculpture was delivered from the shipper to the carrier, the
plaintiff had not met the first prong of her prima facie case under the Carmack test.
Id. at ¶ 9.
{¶17} Downtime argues that appellants’ reliance on Albert is flawed and that
this case is more like Fine Foliage of Florida Inc. v. Bowman Transp. Inc., 901 F.2d
1034 (11th Cir.1990). In Fine Foliage, the plaintiff recovered under the Carmack
Amendment for damages to ferns which he shipped via carrier. Id. at 1038. The
plaintiff established the first prong of the prima facie case through circumstantial
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
evidence which tended to show that the ferns were in good condition at the time of
delivery to the carrier. Id. The Eleventh Circuit found that such reliance on
circumstantial evidence was proper when the evidence was “substantial and reliable.”
Id.
{¶18} The ferns were driven by truck from Fine Foliage’s nursery to seaport
for transportation overseas via cargo ship. Id. at 1035. The carrier (the trucking
company) was given specific instructions for the temperature at which to transport
the ferns. Id. at 1036. The carrier transported the ferns at a temperature far colder
than appropriate. Id. A notation of the carrier’s negligence was made by the cargo
ship before the cargo ship took custody of the ferns and shipped them overseas. Id.
Upon arrival at their destination, the ferns were totally destroyed due to
transportation at an improper temperature. Id.
{¶19} Absent direct evidence of the ferns’ condition prior to delivery to the
carrier, the court relied on several pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) the ferns
were approved by the Department of Agriculture for shipment prior to loading, (2)
the ferns were stored under the proper temperature at Fine Foliage after their
harvest, and (3) other ferns packaged identically, transported to sea port in different
trucks, and stored in the same cooler aboard the cargo ship as the subject ferns,
arrived overseas in good condition. Id. at 1038. The court found that such evidence,
though circumstantial, was enough to satisfy plaintiff’s burden under the first prong
for prima facie liability. Id. at 1038-1039.
{¶20} In Fine Foliage, the plaintiff could account for the storage of the ferns
prior to shipment. Id. at 1038. Downtime cannot. The closest Downtime comes is
an undated video of the machines running properly received by Corbett “three
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
months or so” after the April 2015 inspection. Even if the video was sent to Corbett
on the same day it was shot, the video still shows the condition of the machines
roughly two months before the ship date.
{¶21} It is acceptable for the trial court to draw reasonable inferences from
the circumstantial evidence presented. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. S. Pac.
Transp. Co., 211 F.3d 367, 371 (7th Cir.2000). In Allied, the plaintiff presented
testimony regarding standard procedures used to ensure delivery of goods to carriers
in good condition. Id. The court reasonably inferred that the standard procedures
were followed during the shipment in controversy. Id. Considered along with
evidence that an intermediate carrier did not note any issues with the condition of
the goods, and the bill of lading noted the goods in good condition upon delivery to
the carrier, the court determined that plaintiff had satisfied the first prong of its
prima facie case. Id. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has called the prima facie case a
“very low threshold.” CNA Ins. Co. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., 747 F.3d 339,
353 (6th Cir.2014).
{¶22} Nevertheless, Downtime’s evidence fails to satisfy this low threshold.
There is minimal evidence that the machines were transferred to DDT in good
condition. Such evidence is limited to: (1) Corbett’s testimony that in April 2015 he
fully inspected the machines and found them operational, and (2) the video sent to
Corbett which showed the machines in working order. There is no other evidence in
the record regarding how the machines were stored or their condition between April
and October 2015.
{¶23} Furthermore, there was no testimony regarding the standard
procedures followed by Garner Industries or K.D. Capital in storing their CNC
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
machines. At trial, Adams testified that he could not remember if at the time he
received delivery of the machines they were being stored indoors or outdoors.
{¶24} At the time of shipment, the machines were disconnected from power
and were being prepared for shipment to California. We do not know if the machines
were moved or stored differently as a result. When the machines were loaded onto
DDT’s truck, Adams did not notice any damage to the machines, but he did not
inspect the interior of the machines. Adams is not an expert in CNC machines and
should not have been expected to inspect the interior components of a closed
machine. Even to Corbett, an expert on CNC machines, the extent of the damage was
not known until he powered the machines up, heard the sounds they produced, and
then took them apart and discovered all of the rust inside.
{¶25} The trial court said in its order that absent evidence presented by the
appellants, the court would have to guess as to the condition of the machines prior to
shipment. This is precisely the point addressed by the court in Albert when it held
that it was “simply unknown” what condition the sculpture was in when it was
delivered to the carrier. Albert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 14-CVF-00784, 2016-Ohio-
1541, at ¶ 9. Downtime’s evidence that the machines were in good condition is too
remote from the date of shipment; there are significant gaps between Corbett’s
inspection in April 2015, the video, and the loading of the machines onto DDT’s
trailer on October 12, 2015. It is simply unknown what condition the machines were
in when they were loaded onto DDT’s trailer on October 12, 2015.
{¶26} Even viewing every reasonable presumption in favor of the judgment
and the findings of fact, it was unreasonable for the trial court to find that Corbett’s
testimony was sufficient to meet Downtime’s burden of establishing the first prong of
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the prima facie case of carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment. The trial
court clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in holding
appellants liable for the full cost of the CNC machines. Appellants’ first assignment
of error is sustained.
Components of the CNC Machines
{¶27} We must now decide whether appellants are liable for the missing
components or the damage to the chip conveyors which fell off of Adams’s trailer.
{¶28} In their second assignment of error, appellants contend that in the
event this court sustains the trial court’s conclusion that Downtime established a
prima facie case of carrier liability, it must find the trial court erred in rendering a
verdict for Downtime in the amount of $140,000, the amount Downtime paid for the
CNC machines. Instead, appellants argue, Downtime’s damages are limited to the
$35,332 it listed on its amended claim form filed with Trinity on November 20, 2015.
{¶29} In their brief, appellants state:
[T]here is no dispute that the chip conveyors, which were packaged
separately, were damaged when they fell from the truck. The value of
those items – specified on the amended Claim Form as $35,332 – is
the appropriate measure of Downtime’s damages, if any.
Further, during oral argument, counsel for appellants conceded that the trial judge’s
findings regarding the damage to the chip conveyors were not against the manifest
weight of the evidence, and that appellants are liable for the $35,332 claimed on the
amended claim form. Thus, appellants concede they are liable for the chip conveyors
under the Carmack Amendment.
10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶30} It is undisputed that the machines arrived at Downtime without some
of the associated components, including various covers and cables. It is also
undisputed that Adams unstrapped the chip conveyors before attempting to back the
trailer into Downtime’s building. As Adams backed up, the chip conveyors fell off of
the trailer and were damaged.
{¶31} The trial court found that the negligence of Adams caused the chip
conveyors to fall off of the truck and sustain severe damage. On November 20, 2015,
Downtime filed an amended claim form with Trinity in which it claimed a total cost
of $35,332 for replacement of the missing components and the damage to the chip
conveyors. Downtime determined this dollar amount after consulting with Makino,
the manufacturer of the machines, and researching replacement parts online.
{¶32} We find no issues with the trial court’s determination that appellants
are liable for the missing components and the damage to the chip conveyors.
Downtime’s consultation with Makino and its research efforts are sufficient to
establish that the actual value of the lost components and the damage to the chip
conveyors was $35,332, as claimed in the amended claim form.
{¶33} We sustain appellants’ second assignment of error that the trial court
erred in awarding damages to Downtime in the amount of $140,000. The proper
measure of damages is $35,332.
{¶34} While the general rule is that judgment will not be rendered by the
court of appeals,
where the pleadings and evidence all unequivocally show that a party
is entitled to judgment, especially where the right is admitted in a
11
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
pleading, the party in whose favor such admissions are made, must be
considered to be entitled to judgment * * *.
Meyer v. Dutro, 102 Ohio App. 195, 199, 139 N.E.2d 476 (1st Dist.1956). Therefore,
we find that remand to the trial court is not necessary, and it is proper for this court
to enter judgment.
Conclusion
{¶35} The trial court erred in finding that Downtime had proven their prima
facie case of carrier liability and awarding damages in the amount of $140,000. The
trial court did not err in finding appellants liable for the missing components and the
damage to the chip conveyors. We reverse in part the decision of the trial court and
modify the award of $140,000 to $35,332. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in
part as modified.
Judgment accordingly.
BERGERON, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
12