Close
Updated:

Directed verdict affirmed – no causation, no expert

A pro se plaintiff without expert evidence could not support her claim that her car was repaired negligently.

In Jiang v. Furness d/b/a Premium Auto Repair, No. M2023-01554-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2024), the plaintiff had her car repaired by the defendant and subsequently suffered damages. She then filed suit for negligence and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). At the close of the plaintiff’s proof during a jury trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict to the defendant on both claims. That ruling was affirmed on appeal.

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must have evidence of causation. The plaintiff attempted to introduce three exhibits at trial. The window sticker from when she purchased her car and the repair bill was allowed into evidence. The third exhibit, however, contained hearsay and was not permitted. The plaintiff did not call any expert witnesses to testify on her behalf. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “[a] reasonable juror could not find causation from this window sticker and repair bill.” (internal citation omitted).

The plaintiff argued that the window sticker showed her car was a 2011 model, while the repair bill stated that her car was a 2009. She asserted that a juror could infer that an incorrect part was ordered based on these documents. The defendant testified that the part was ordered based on the tag on the part already installed in the car and that the new part was correct or would not have fit the vehicle. The plaintiff did not have a mechanic testify to refute this claim. The trial court found that the only connection between the repair and the damages offered by the plaintiff was “temporal proximity,” which was not enough to sustain the negligence claim. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant.

The directed verdict on the TCPA claim was also affirmed.

This opinion was released 4.5 months after the case was assigned on briefs.

Contact Us