[Cite as Savidge v. Klaus, 2017-Ohio-4357.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

AUGLAIZE COUNTY 

 

KEITH SAVIDGE, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 2-17-02 

 v. 

RONALD KLAUS, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Auglaize Municipal Court 

Trial Court No. 2016 CVF 00284 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: June 19, 2017 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

James A. Tesno for Appellant 

 Stephen J. Mansfield for Appellee 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-2- 

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ronald E. Klaus (“Klaus”), brings this appeal 

from the December 21, 2016, judgment of the Auglaize County Municipal Court 

granting a money judgement against Klaus in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Keith 

Savidge (“Savidge”), in the amount of $4,799. On appeal, Klaus argues that 

multiple findings of the trial court were not supported by the evidence and that the 

trial court’s judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Klaus is a farmer and Savidge is the owner-operator of an agricultural 

service and repair business. In August of 2015, Klaus brought his 1969 Ford tractor 

to Savidge to have the clutch repaired and to have a new “pressure plate” put on.1

 

Klaus also asked Savidge to check various parts for water leaks including, inter alia, 

the “head gasket,” and “frost plug.” Klaus brought his tractor to Savidge’s shop on 

a trailer. Savidge made the requested repairs to the tractor and he replaced a hose 

that Savidge determined was leaking after conducting a pressure test.2

 In the process 

of replacing the hose, all the coolant had to be drained from the tractor. One of the 

primary disputes in this case is whether the coolant was returned to the tractor after 

 

1

 Savidge’s complaint states that it was a 1970 Ford Tractor but Klaus indicated it was actually a 1969. 

2

 Savidge specifically testified that water “shot right out of” the bad hose when he was conducting a pressure 

test. (Trial Tr. at 3). Savidge testified that he figured the hose was where Klaus was losing water. (Id. at 

28). The new hose was provided by Klaus. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-3- 

the hose was replaced, which Savidge and his son adamantly maintained happened 

here. 

{¶3} When the work on the tractor was completed, Savidge notified Klaus 

and Klaus came to the shop to get his tractor.3

 At the time, Klaus could not arrange 

to haul the tractor so he attempted to drive the tractor back to his residence, which 

was over 10 miles away.4

 After Klaus had driven approximately 4 miles, he 

indicated that the tractor was overheating. Klaus stated that he thought he could 

smell it. Klaus stated that he pulled the tractor off of the road to let it cool down for 

a bit, then he drove another 2 miles down the road to Jim Johnson’s house, who was 

a friend and a mechanic. 

{¶4} Jim Johnson indicated that he could see Klaus’s tractor coming toward 

his property, that it looked like the tractor was on fire, with an “ungodly amount of 

smoke” coming from the “blow by tube.”5

 (Trial Tr. at 115-116). Johnson stated 

that he could smell antifreeze in the air in the smoke. At Johnson’s residence the 

tractor was shut down completely and water was put into the coolant system. So 

much water had to be added that Johnson and Klaus felt the coolant system had to 

be empty. Klaus eventually started the tractor again and when it was shut down it 

 

3

 The original bill was $1,872.00 and it was promptly paid by Klaus according to both parties. 4

 Savidge testified that he thought Klaus lived 15-18 miles away. A definitive answer as to how far away 

Klaus lived was never provided by Klaus, but it can be inferred from the testimony that it was at least 10 

miles. 

5

 Johnson testified that the “blow by tube” was the “breather for the – the crankcase.” (Trial Tr. at 116). 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-4- 

had water in the oil and a similar “blow by,” or plume of smoke coming out of the 

tractor. Further, Johnson indicated that water was coming into the “crankcase” 

through the engine. Klaus indicated that after letting the tractor sit for a night at 

Johnson’s residence, all the water eventually ran into the crankcase. 

{¶5} Savidge was called and asked to come out to Johnson’s property by 

Klaus.6

 Klaus felt that the incident was caused by Savidge failing to put coolant 

back into the system after replacing the hose and draining the coolant during the 

initial repair job. Savidge was adamant that he had a protocol that was always used 

for returning coolant to the system, and that the protocol was used on Klaus’s tractor 

in this case. Savidge specifically recalled watching his son, who worked part-time 

for Savidge, put the coolant back into Klaus’s tractor, and Savidge’s son testified 

that he did put the coolant back in Klaus’s tractor. Savidge maintained that separate 

problems with the engine caused the overheating, not any failure by him to return 

any coolant to the system. 

{¶6} Regardless, the tractor was taken back to Savidge’s business, where it 

was determined that the tractor did have engine issues. Klaus took the “block” at 

Savidge’s suggestion to see if there were any cracks in it, and it was determined that 

the block was cracked and it was ultimately repaired elsewhere. It was “bored” and 

“sleeves’ were put in it. (Trial Tr. at 20). 

 

6

 Savidge testified that Johnson’s residence was “ten mile[s] exactly” from his shop. (Trial Tr. at 10). Savidge 

testified that if there was no water in the system Klaus would not have made it two miles. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-5- 

{¶7} Savidge then finished the work, which he described as “overhaul[ing] 

the engine,” on the tractor and notified Klaus that it was ready to be picked up. (Id. 

at 22). Savidge gave Klaus a bill for $4,799 and Klaus paid it by check and took his 

tractor, loading it onto a trailer to haul it away.7

 Klaus stopped payment on the 

check shortly thereafter. 

{¶8} On April 12, 2016, Savidge filed a “Complaint for Money Judgment” 

against Klaus for the $4,779.00 repair bill. Attached to the complaint were copies 

of the invoice and the check on which the stop payment had been issued. 

{¶9} On May 9, 2016, Klaus filed an Answer and Counterclaim. In the 

answer, Klaus admitted that Savidge had performed work on the tractor as alleged 

in the complaint and admitted that he had originally paid by check and stopped 

payment on the check; however, he asserted a counterclaim alleging that Savidge 

agreed to “repair and overhaul the clutch” in the tractor in August of 2015, that 

Savidge’s work “caused the coolant to be removed from [Klaus’s] tractor and 

[Savidge] failed to replace it,” that Savidge returned the tractor after he had 

completed the clutch repairs without replacing the coolant in the tractor, and that 

due to this negligence, the tractor overheated, causing damage to the engine. Klaus 

 

7

 The bill had a subheading, “Work to be done,” which contained the following language: “(1) Water in oil 

[line break] Remove Cylinder Head Replace Head gasket didn’t help Pull Engine Pulled [sic] Apart they took 

to machine shop it had pin holes in [illegible]. They Sleeved I put new Pistons, Rings, Rod + [illegible], new 

oil pump, got running, put oil gauge in to check PSI had 75 PSI at [illegible].” (Pl.’s Ex. 2). There is another 

line break followed by a “note” that states “injection pump needs reworked + [illegible] gauges and tack 

don’t work[.]” (Id.) 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-6- 

further alleged that in August 2015, Savidge agreed to repair the damage to the 

tractor occasioned by the overheating. Klaus claimed that he incurred expenses in 

the repairs/rebuilding of his tractor in the sum of $2,998.72 with compensable time 

and mileage of $1,458.54. Klaus alleged that this was all incurred as a proximate 

result of Savidge’s negligence in failing to place coolant in Klaus’s tractor after the 

initial repairs. Klaus thus demanded payment in the amount of $4,457.26. 

{¶10} On May 31, 2016, Savidge filed his answer to the counterclaim. 

Savidge denied that he failed to replace coolant during the original repair. 

{¶11} In September of 2016 a bench trial was held.8

 At trial, Savidge 

testified in his case-in-chief that he performed repairs on Klaus’s vehicle on two 

separate occasions, both of which were the incidents previously discussed. 

Savidge’s son also testified, specifically regarding the initial repair, stating that he 

did replace the coolant in Klaus’s tractor after replacing the hoses. Savidge testified 

that he witnessed his son replace the coolant according to their established protocol. 

In addition, Savidge testified that several, if not all of Klaus’s gauges were not 

working on his tractor during the initial repair job. 

{¶12} Savidge also called Mark Siegel to testify, who owned “Exit 99” 

engine rebuilders. Klaus’s “block” had been brought to Siegel’s establishment after 

 

8

 It is not marked in the record what day in September the trial was actually held. This is perhaps because 

the beginning of the trial, and some of the first witness’s testimony was not transcribed due to a technical 

problem with the recording system. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-7- 

Klaus broke down following the initial repair done by Savidge in August of 2015. 

Siegel testified as to repairing a pinhole in the pressure block in Klaus’s engine in 

this case. Siegel also testified that the pinhole would cause coolant to escape over 

a period of time, through exhaust or oil. Siegel testified that if a cylinder had a 

“leaking bore at the bottom” he would expect fluid to be found in the “crank case.” 

(Trial Tr. at 42). Siegel testified that when he repaired the engine there was a leaking 

bore towards the bottom. (Id.) 

{¶13} In his case-in-chief, Klaus testified that he had no problems with the 

coolant system prior to the initial repair done by Savidge. Klaus also testified that 

after his tractor overheated on the way home from Savidge’s business, it was his 

understanding that he would pay for parts to repair the tractor and Savidge would 

cover the labor. Klaus testified that he believed the only reason the tractor 

overheated was due to Savidge’s failure to put coolant back into the system after the 

initial repairs. Klaus sought compensation for his time and mileage as a result of 

what he considered to be Savidge’s failure at $100 per hour. 

{¶14} Klaus called four other witnesses to testify, including Joseph Selhorst 

who sold farm equipment and had worked on tractor engines in the past. Selhorst 

had never worked on Klaus’s engine at any time, but he was asked a number of 

hypothetical questions essentially giving him the facts of this case. Selhorst was 

then asked where the coolant could have gone if it was put back into the system by 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-8- 

Savidge and he gave several opinions, though he ultimately opined that given the 

circumstances he would guess that there was no coolant put back into the system by 

Savidge. 

{¶15} Klaus’s son testified at trial that he was the main driver of the tractor 

in question and that he had no problem with the cooling system prior to taking it to 

Savidge’s business. 

{¶16} Jim Johnson was the final witness to testify, giving his account of 

seeing Klaus drive up towards his property in a plume of white smoke, where he 

could smell the antifreeze in the air. Johnson testified that after water was put into 

the system on his property, the same “blow by” came out of the tractor that he had 

seen when the tractor approached his property. 

{¶17} At the conclusion of the testimony, the matter was submitted to the 

trial court for decision. On December 21, 2016, the trial court filed its judgment 

entry on the matter. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of Savidge, reasoning, 

in part, as follows. 

The court finds that neither party has presented any definitive 

evidence as to how the problem occurred. The plaintiff and his 

son had followed shop procedure in placing the coolant back into 

the tractor. They then believed that the engine problem caused 

the coolant to leak into the oil causing the tractor to overheat. 

They based this opinion on the smoke observed as the tractor was 

being driven to the James Johnson residence in that the smoke 

would have been water vapor boiling out of the hot oil and 

escaping through the blow by tube. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-9- 

The defendant took the position that the coolant was not put into 

the tractor because when he checked the oil with James Johnson 

before they added water and ran the tractor[,] [b]oth the 

defendant and James Johnson testified that the oil was slightly 

over full and its color was black. After the water was added to 

the coolant system the oil was now higher than before and was a 

lightish grey. Mr. Johnson testified that the same type of plumb 

[sic] was present when the tractor was run at his residence as he 

observed as the tractor was being driven down the road to his 

residence. 

Therefore the Court finds that the plaintiff did complete the 

repair to put the tractor back into working order. There was no 

agreement that he would do so without payment and the court 

cannot find that the defendant has established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to put 

coolant back into the tractor after the first repair. 

(Doc. No. 56). The trial court thus ruled in favor of Savidge and denied Klaus’s 

counterclaim. Klaus appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following 

assignments of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error No. 1 

The judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee and against 

appellant was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Assignment of Error No. 2 

The trial court erred in finding that there was a contract between 

appellee and appellant and rendering judgment on the same. 

Assignment of Error No. 3 

The appellee failed to meet his burden of proof as to the cost of 

repairs of appellant’s tractor. 

{¶18} As all of Klaus’s assignments of error deal with a discussion of 

evidence, we will address them together. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-10- 

First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error

{¶19} In Klaus’s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court’s 

judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In Klaus’s second and 

third assignments of error, he essentially argues that there was insufficient evidence 

to support some of the trial court’s findings. 

{¶20} Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a trial court’s judgment 

is a question of law. Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. See Eastley v. Volkman, 132 

Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 11. 

{¶21} The Supreme Court of Ohio has “carefully distinguished the terms 

‘sufficiency’ and ‘weight,’ declaring that ‘manifest weight’ and ‘legal sufficiency’ 

are ‘both quantitatively and qualitatively different.’ ” Eastley at ¶ 10, quoting State 

v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. In 

reviewing manifest weight of the evidence claims in civil cases, the appellate court 

must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 

consider the credibility of the witnesses and determine whether in resolving 

conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way and created such a 

manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial 

ordered. See Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012–Ohio–2179. 

{¶22} In defining weight of the evidence review in civil cases, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio has held that, 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-11- 

“[w]eight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater 

amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side 

of the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury 

that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their 

verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find 

the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is 

to be established before them. Weight is not a question of 

mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief.’ ” 

(Emphasis sic.) Eastley at ¶ 12, quoting Thompkins at 387, quoting Black’s Law 

Dictionary. 

{¶23} When determining a weight of the evidence argument, a court of 

appeals “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” 

Eastley at ¶ 21. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised 

only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the 

judgment. Furthermore, “ ‘[i]f the evidence is susceptible of more than one 

construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is 

consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict 

and judgment.’ ” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984), 

fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 60, at 191–192 

(1978); Eastley at ¶ 21. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence Regarding the Bill for Repair 

{¶24} In Klaus’s third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred 

by finding that Savidge sufficiently established the cost of repairs and that the 

repairs were reasonable and necessary. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-12- 

{¶25} At trial, Savidge entered his bill for repairs into evidence and he also 

testified regarding the bill. The bill listed the work performed and hours worked. 

Savidge testified regarding the amount of hours listed on the bill, indicating that the 

hours listed that he worked on Klaus’s tractor were on the back of the work order, 

with K by his name and B by the hours worked by Savidge’s son. Savidge testified 

that altogether there were 63 work hours spent on the job and that he charged $75 

per hour for work. Savidge testified that he had charged that rate for four years and 

that other establishments charged up to $100 an hour, so he felt his rate was fair. 

Savidge also testified that the only part he supplied was new antifreeze. 

{¶26} Based on the testimony and exhibit presented we cannot find that there 

was insufficient evidence establishing the amount related to the repair work. The 

bill and the testimony support the trial court’s decision. Thus Klaus’s third 

assignment of error is overruled. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence Regarding a Contract for Repair 

{¶27} In Klaus’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court 

erred by finding that there was a contract between Klaus and Savidge for repair of 

the vehicle. Specifically, Klaus argues that Savidge had to present more than just a 

bill to establish an agreement for payment; rather, he had to affirmatively establish 

an agreement between the parties. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-13- 

{¶28} Contrary to Klaus’s argument, Savidge testified that while he and 

Klaus were at Jim Johnson’s residence, Klaus asked Savidge if he was going to 

cover the bill for new repairs or was going to pay half and Savidge stated that he 

would not because it was not his fault. 

{¶29} Klaus testified that he had a different understanding of the matter and 

thought that Savidge was going to supply the labor to fix the tractor for free; 

however, Klaus did initially furnish a check to pay for the labor and stopped 

payment on it shortly thereafter.9

{¶30} Based on the evidence presented and the inferences that could be made 

therefrom, we cannot find that there was insufficient evidence presented for the trial 

court to find that there was an agreement for Klaus to pay for the repairs done by 

Savidge. Although the testimony conflicted on this issue, if Savidge’s testimony 

was believed, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision. 

Therefore, Klaus’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

Manifest Weight of the Evidence 

{¶31} In his first assignment of error, Klaus argues that the trial court’s 

judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, he argues 

that the testimony of Joseph Selhorst, his “expert” witness, who answered a series 

of hypothetical questions based on the facts of this case, should have outweighed 

 

9

 Klaus indicated a friend advised him to take this tact so that he could recover his tractor. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-14- 

any claims of Savidge and his son that coolant was put back into the engine after 

the initial repair. 

{¶32} In his argument, Klaus acknowledges the testimony of the Savidges—

without agreeing with it—wherein the Savidges affirmatively testified that they put 

coolant back into the tractor, that they had a specific process for reminding 

themselves to do so, and that the process was used in this instance. Klaus also 

acknowledges that engine work had to be done on his tractor due to a pinhole, which 

could cause coolant to escape according to Mark Siegel. However, Klaus argues 

that the testimony of his expert opining that the likely problem with the tractor 

overheating was a failure by the Savidges to replace the coolant should outweigh 

the other testimony. 

{¶33} In this case the trial court was presented with conflicting testimony 

and made a difficult decision given what was presented. We are compelled under a 

manifest weight review to give evidence that is susceptible to more than one 

interpretation the interpretation given by the trial court. Here, there was a legitimate 

path to the trial court’s determination and we cannot find, when giving a 

presumption in favor of the factfinder, that the trial court clearly lost its way. This 

is particularly true given that Selhorst never worked on Klaus’s tractor. Therefore, 

Klaus’s first assignment of error is overruled. 
Case No. 2-17-02 

-15- 

Conclusion

{¶34} For the foregoing reasons Klaus’s assignments of error are overruled 

and the judgment of the Auglaize County Municipal Court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur. 

/jlr