NEAL C. FOLCK Plaintiff-Appellant
ROBERT REDMAN Defendant-Appellee
Civil Appeal from Clark County Municipal Court, Trial Court Case No. 12-CVI-2436
NEAL FOLCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se
ROBERT REDMAN, Defendant-Appellee, pro se
(¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Neal C. Folck appeals from a judgment for defendant Robert Redman. We infer from Folck's brief that he is contending that the judgment of the trial court is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
(¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court's judgment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
I. Folck Rents a Boat to Redman
(¶ 3} The magistrate made the following findings of fact:
1. On June 30, 2012 Plaintiff Neal C. Folck rented to Defendant Robert Redman Plaintiffs 2002 Sea Ray boat. The boat was returned to Plaintiff at the end of the day.
2. On July 1, 2012, Plaintiff advised Defendant that there were scratches in the bow area, for which he requested compensation.
3. Plaintiff testified to his belief that the scratches occurred during the use or transport [of the boat] by Defendant. Plaintiffs witness and companion, Virginia Lynn, echoed that testimony. Plaintiff offered blurry black and white photocopies of undated pictures purporting to show the damage. Plaintiff did not observe, and offered no testimony from anyone who observed, the actual infliction of any damage. Plaintiff offered no direct evidence of any specific act or omission causing the alleged damage.
4. Defendant testified that he did not carefully inspect the boat upon taking possession, but did look it over before returning it. He adamantly denied causing any damage during his use or transport of the boat. Defendant's wife also testified that she observed no fresh damage, and that they did nothing to cause the scratches complained of by Plaintiff while they had possession. Defendant testified and offered documents showing that there had been a severe storm the night before the rental, suggesting that any actual damage may have been caused thereby.
5. Plaintiff called no witness to testify as to the diminution in value of the boat as a result of the alleged scratches, or the reasonableness and necessity of the repair costs he claims; Plaintiff did offer a Repair Order from Al Williams Enterprises, dated September 25, 2012, in the amount of $561.75, but no evidence of actual payment of any such amount.
6. Both before the June 30, 2012 rental to Defendant, and between such rental and the September 25, 2012 Repair Order, the boat in question had been rented to, used by, and ...