Case Name: BOHN FORD, INC. v. Betty K. LANZA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-06-30
Citations: 347 So. 2d 935
Docket Number: No. 7952
Parties: BOHN FORD, INC. v. Betty K. LANZA.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and LEM-MON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 935–938

Head Matter:
BOHN FORD, INC. v. Betty K. LANZA.
No. 7952.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 30, 1977.
Alma L. Chasez, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and LEM-MON, JJ.

Opinion:
SAMUEL, Chief Judge.
This is a suit for $259.59 on an open account for transmission repairs made to defendant's automobile. The defendant answered, admitting the repairs had been made but averring they had "failed to correct the transmission problem". Following trial, there was judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff has appealed.
Defendant had purchased the used car from the plaintiff. Shortly after the 90 day warranty period and after the vehicle had been driven an additional 5,807 miles following purchase, the vehicle was returned to the plaintiff with complaints regarding the transmission. As a result of a test drive, plaintiff found the transmission hesitated and serviced the valve body, adjusted the bands, changed the transmission oil and put in a new rear grease seal. The charge for this work was $48.52, and defendant issued her check to plaintiff in that amount. However, defendant stopped payment on the check. She returned the car approximately one week after the repair work had been done, complaining that the transmission was still giving trouble. Plaintiff then completely dismantled and overhauled the transmission, for which work defendant was billed $211.07. Defendant paid that amount, but subsequently also stopped payment on that check.
Plaintiff's mechanic, a specialist in transmission repairs, testified he had made the second repairs and that following a test drive he had found the car was operating satisfactorily.
The plea that the repairs were defective or unsatisfactory is an affirmative defense and our settled jurisprudence is that a litigant so pleading bears the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this case the only evidence in the record relative to the affirmative defense is the testimony of the defendant herself. She stated: The car was in worse shape when returned after the first repair and still in bad shape after the second; it continued to have rattling noises in the motor, bucked and "didn't run right". After the second occasion she brought the vehicle to her own mechanic who did the necessary repair work. However, she admitted she did not know what kind of repair work he had done. She was not a mechanic and had not driven the vehicle in suit at all; the driving of that car was done by other members of her family.
Under these facts and circumstances, we must conclude defendant has failed to carry her burden of proving her affirmative defense. Accordingly, we reverse insofar as the second charge of $211.07 is concerned.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Bohn Ford, Inc., and against the defendant, Betty K. Lanza, in the full sum of $211.07, together with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid. Costs in both courts are to be paid by the defendant.
REVERSED.
. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1005; Crescent Cigarette Vending Corporation v. Toca, La.App., 271 So.2d 53; Automatique New Orleans, Inc. v. Capitano, La.App., 211 So.2d 757; Richmond Engineering Co. v. James F. O'Neil Co., La.App., 138 So.2d 627; Ray v. Martin, La.App., 117 So.2d 839.
. Defendant's mechanic was not called as a witness and the record is devoid of any evidence emanating from him.
. Ray v. Martin, supra, note 1.