General Plating & Engineering Inc. v. Syn Industries

• Decision Date: 14 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 3-484A96,3-484A96
• Citation: 472 N.E.2d 1290
• Parties: GENERAL PLATING & ENGINEERING INC. v. SYN INDUSTRIES, et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1290

472 N.E.2d 1290

GENERAL PLATING & ENGINEERING INC. v. SYN INDUSTRIES, et al.

No. 3-484A96.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Third District.

Jan. 14, 1985.

William D. Swift, Hayes, Swift & Finlayson, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Thomas M. Gallmeyer, Rothberg, Gallmeyer, Fruechtenicht & Logan, Fort Wayne, for appellee.

GARRARD, Judge.

Syn Industries, d/b/a Trident Corporation (Syn) manufactures and distributes metal fasteners, nuts and bolts. In August 1980 it sent hydraulic fasteners worth $14,480.32 to General Plating and Engineering, Inc. (General Plating) to be plated. A fire, apparently caused by an unknown arsonist, occurred at General Plating on August 18, 1980. Syn's fasteners were grouped into three areas of which two sustained fire damage. One group of fasteners had been plated and was not damaged by the fire.

After Syn's president, Dale Dreher, inspected the burned parts he informed General Plating's president, Mike Miller, that he could not sell them because the fire could have weakened the fasteners making them unreliable. Notwithstanding this information, General Plating subsequently proceeded to clean, oil and plate the burned parts without informing Syn. The burned parts were then commingled with the unburned parts so as to make it impossible to distinguish among them without testing, a procedure which results in destruction of the tested part.

After General Plating did not satisfy Syn's repeated requests for payment of the value of the fasteners, Syn brought this action on February 24, 1982. General Plating filed cross-claims on April 15, 1982 and January 20, 1983 seeking payment for work performed for Syn subsequent to the fire. After a bench trial on June 2, 1983, the trial court found for Syn on its complaint and General Plating's first cross-claim and for General Plating on its additional cross-claim. The court ordered that Syn receive judgment against General Plating in the amount of $14,480.32 and that General Plating recover from Syn in the amount of $502.44 making a net judgment for Syn of $13,977.88. General Plating now appeals.

The issues are:

1) Is the trial court's judgment contrary to law and contrary to the evidence because the defendant overcame the prima facie showing of negligence by showing the loss was caused without its fault?

2) Is the trial court's judgment contrary to law and contrary to the evidence in that the plaintiff failed to prove the damages awarded in the trial court's judgment?

Under our standard of review we presume the general judgment of the trial court is based on findings supported by the evidence. Ray v. Goldsmith (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 176. We will not weigh conflicting evidence but consider only evidence most favorable to the prevailing party. We will affirm the trial court's judgment if there is evidence of probative value that sustains the judgment. In addition, when we review a general finding of the trial court we must affirm if it is sustainable on any legal theory which is supported by the evidence. Van Orman v. State (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 1301. We will reverse a decision as contrary to the evidence only if the trial court's decision is not supported by any substantial and probative evidence. Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc. (1981), Ind.App., 423 N.E.2d 675.

General Plating maintains that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law and contrary to the evidence because Syn failed to sustain its burden of proof by showing General Plating was at fault or negligent regarding the fire. Specifically, it asserts that (a) Syn failed to show the fasteners were damaged by the fire or, even if it did, (b) it failed to show the fire occurred with General Plating's fault.

The general rule is that where a bailment for mutual benefit exists and a bailor shows that goods were received in good condition by the bailee and were not returned undamaged, the bailor has made a prima facie case of negligence against the bailee. In order to overcome this showing, the bailee must produce evidence that tends to show that the damage occurred without his fault. Spencer v. Glover (1981), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 870.

(a) Damage to the fasteners

The evidence most favorable to Syn is that approximately two-thirds of the fasteners were involved in the fire. The fasteners consisted of a steel compound which made them capable of withstanding 20,000 pounds per square inch pressure. An expert testifying for Syn stated that after testing fasteners taken from General Plating and similar fasteners not involved in the fire, his opinion was that when fasteners are exposed to heat followed by rapid cooling, as would occur during a fire which was doused with water, their metal structure can change by getting harder. In addition, he stated that there was no way to determine if the change in structure caused a defect in the part short of putting the part to use, i.e. attaching the fastener and seeing if it withstands 20,000 p.s.i. pressure. Finally, Dreher testified that five out of thirty-five fasteners randomly selected from the commingled fasteners at General Plating did not pass a "go-no go gage test."

As a result, Syn asserts it has sustained damage in that it could not...