Did you look at this truck before you leased it from the defendant?
I did.
What issues did you point out?
Tires, electrical problems.
I pay for all of that stuff.
No.
Do you have any such facts?
No, just-- I just felt like it was a waste of my time.
You are not alone. Most litigants feel like that.
[announcer] Today onTribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] Previously onTribunal Justice.
The defendant is a truck driver who leased one of your tractor trailers.
Yes.
[Adam] And he returns the truck.
He said it was a lemon,
and he said that it was your problem to deal with.
You said there was nothing wrong with the truck when you gave it to him,
and that you're suing him for the $1800...
-Yes. -...for those two weeks of non-payment
and $3,200 for misuse of your funds
for buying four used tires instead of new ones
and doing something with the muffler,
but most certainly not putting a new one on like you paid for.
Mr. Thomas, you maintain that since you were
the renter of the truck, you weren't responsible for anything.
He's responsible for all of the repairs.
That makes no sense.
Sometimes when you repair a vehicle,
in order to save money, they use used parts.
That's not fraud.
It costs me, for a regular car to buy a tire, three, four hundred dollars,
and you're gonna tell me for tires for that truck,
it's only costing four, five hundred dollars a tire for a brand-new one?
But there are some that you can get somewhere around about five hundred bucks.
-And that's about the cheapest. -How about 856 for one tire?
[announcer] And now for the conclusion.
So when you got this receipt, you knew they weren't new tires.
You had to know it because it would have cost you
about $3200 for four new tires.
But I also wanna say something 'cause in your papers, sir,
you said, during week three, Al had the truck and he called you.
He said it was acting up. You said he was a mechanic.
He looked at it and he said it needed new tires and a muffler.
He gave you the cost for the tires and the muffler.
You didn't think twice about it. You sent him the money.
He said he was gonna take care of it.
Then you said here, at the end of week five,
he dropped the truck off to you.
He didn't.
You just testified here
that you had to send two guys to go get the truck from him.
It was parked in his lot.
So he did not drop the truck off to you at week five.
Now, you say that you examined it,
and he didn't put on all brand-new tires, which is what you paid for.
So now let me go to the pictures 'cause I was looking at this,
and I looked at the tires on here.
It looks like he went out, bought four tires that look new.
I don't know if they're brand new.
They look new.
And he gave you a bill for 2640, and you sent him the money.
I sent him the money to put the new tires on the car.
[Patricia] You did, no doubt.
-And-- -Whatever those...
Okay, how about we use the word "replacement tires"?
Because there's no evidence in this record that indicates to me
the word "brand-new,"
and my view is that since you were only charged $500 a tire,
that you kind of knew that those were not gonna be brand new.
This document indicates to me that the tires that were purchased
were not brand new because they're well below,
almost half the price of a brand-new tire.
Now, did you buy four new and four used or just four tires?
I bought four tires and they were different prices.
I said, "Well, you have expensive ones and cheap ones."
He said, "Well, I don't really have the money right now.
Can you get the cheapest ones?"
That's what I got.
Okay, so you bought four new tires at the cheapest price,
which were 500.
[Alvin] Correct.
And so they were brand new, but he didn't buy the top of the line.
Correct.
[Patricia] So where did he misuse the money?
That's what I think was confusing me.
He took the money you gave him, and he bought the tires.
The confusing part is that he didn't buy new tires.
The tires that's on here right now, those are used tires.
You can see that. Look at that.
[Patricia] Maybe because they were the cheaper tires.
Maybe they were not brand new.
-Also-- -[Patricia] Hang on.
I'm not a over-the-road driver,
so tires tend to last longer over the road.
I haul gasoline, so it's much heavier.
And the yard that I park in is a gravel yard.
[Patricia] I want another question I wanna say.
The Hertz car analogy.
When you pick up a car, you look at the car.
You say, "There's a scratch here. I'm not paying for that. Mark it off.
You got a cracked windshield. Let's mark that off."
Did you look at this truck before you leased it from the defendant?
I did.
And did you point out that there were any issues?
[Alvin] Yes.
What issues did you point out?
Tires, electrical problems, the horn, the windshield.
[Patricia] What was wrong with the windshield?
It was cracked.
[Patricia] Did you have a conversation with him
regarding the problems with the truck when he first took it?
And I paid for everything that he said that needed to be done
in order for him to drive the truck.
I pay for all of that stuff.
Same thing about the tire. I...
[Patricia] Go ahead, pause. Did he pay for those things?
The horn, the windshield, were those taken care of before you took the truck?
He paid for some of them, not the windshield.
So you were driving with a broken windshield?
It was on the passenger side.
My company said that I could go ahead and drive it
as long as the tires were replaced, the horn,
and it had to get some electrical wiring.
Now, so your position is that before you drove that truck off any lot,
the horn was fixed, the electrical was fixed.
What about the muffler?
Well, the muffler was there when I first started driving.
It just rotted out. The truck was old.
In three weeks, you lost a muffler?
It rotted out. It, like, just rusted out.
It was already rusted.
Like, you don't get up and look at the muffler.
It just broke off.
Did you put a muffler bill in here for the new muffler
or for the replacement muffler that you bought?
No. No, it was just a road service call for the muffler.
So when you returned the truck to him, it had no muffler on it?
Yeah, it did.
So how did it get on there if the other one rust--
rusted off like that?
[Alvin] It rusted down.
-I have a picture of it. -Oh, like that, then.
-[Alvin] And-- -What happened?
The service guy came and looked at it. He had to leave. I was at Chevron.
Yeah, I don't really...
Tell us what photograph you have that shows that the muffler that fell off
was not on the truck anymore.
Right here.
Is it this one here?
-Am I looking at the same picture? -[Alvin] No.
-[Eric] That's the new muffler. -[Patricia] This is the new one.
This is the one that he sent me.
Sir, can I please get that, just so that I don't have to look for it?
[Eric] I paid for roadside service to fix,
and they did not fix it.
Yeah, because you think you can pay what you wanna pay.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen.
[announcer] Coming up onTribunal Justice.
I either believe him that he kept it for two weeks in his yard
and you sent somebody to get it,
or I believe the inconsistency in your papers,
which say he drove it and dropped it off at you.
And I see you wanna raise your hand. Right now, you're not losing.
Is there something you think that's gonna help you,
or is it gonna make you sink?
[theme music playing]
[announcer]Eric Brown is accusing truck driver Alvin Thomas
of misusing the funds he gave Alvin for truck repairs.
Alvin claims the tractor trailer truck was a lemon,
and he's not responsible for the cost of repairs.
So this is the one you had on that the roadside people--
This is the one that they fixed roadside?
-No, they came-- -That's the one
where it came off at a roadside.
Okay, this one came off, and this is the one you put on.
[Eric] Correct.
-This one's blue, this one's not. -[Eric] Correct.
-[Patricia] You did it. -[Eric] Correct.
[Patricia] So you paid for this directly yourself.
Correct. I paid for that one.
And I paid for the other one
that he said that they fixed side of the road,
and they did not fix it.
And how much did that cost you?
That one, that one right there cost me 963.
The one that he sent me with roadside assistance,
it started out at 653,
and then he told me that he worked it down to 453,
and I cashed out him the money for 453, for the roadside assistance.
Okay, so, and if I'm understanding you then,
what you're saying is roadside assistance did nothing.
Or at least you don't even know that they came because all you know
is that he asked you for $453.
Correct.
-[Patricia] You sent it. -Yeah.
When you got it back, what was on there was this thing here.
[Eric] The old one, correct.
-[Patricia] That was old. -[Eric] Yes.
[Patricia] So, what did roadside assistance do when they came?
They came, looked at the problem, left, went and got a chain and chained it up.
I got you.
They didn't come with their own muffler for your truck and stick it on.
Right, when you call--
[Patricia] Do you have a bill to that extent that shows what they did?
I have it right here on my phone.
[Patricia] What is that? What am I looking?
This is where I sent him, I sent him $478.
I'm not doubting that you sent the money.
I just wanna know--
I sent him $175 for roadside service,
$183 for the muffler, and $120 for the labor.
That's what he told me it was for that particular thing.
That's when I sent him the money.
[Patricia] Okay, but that doesn't mean he gave you a new muffler.
All that means is the guy showed up. The service charge to show up was 175.
Whatever he did to...
You know when you take the car some place and it takes them an hour and a half
to tell you that they don't know what's wrong,
-they bill you for that hour and a half. -[Eric] Yeah.
[Patricia] That's the service charge for 123,
and the 183 that you're talking about
is them chaining this altogether, so I don't see where the problem is.
They disposed of four tires. There were four tires on the car. Done.
I don't know where you're asking for anything else.
And at this point, I don't have any other questions
'cause now I'm not confused.
And the $900 for the leasing,
I either believe him that he kept it for two weeks in his yard
and you sent somebody to get it,
or I believe the inconsistency in your papers,
which say he drove it and dropped it off at you.
And I see you wanna raise your hand. Right now, you're not losing.
Is there something you think that's gonna help you,
or is it gonna make you sink?
I have a text showing that the truck is in my yard
and you can come and pick it up.
He spoke with my--
How long before he picked it up was that text?
Probably about three weeks, four weeks, something like that.
-I would love to see that text. -[Alvin] Okay. [chuckles] All right.
[Patricia] Byrd?
[Byrd] Where does it start?
[Alvin] Well, I had to get to it.
-Okay, there's June 20th. All right. -Okay, see that, July the 22nd?
-Mm-hmm. -Right.
-Thanks, Byrd. -From the 20th.
[Byrd] It starts June the 20th.
-Then the next one is July 22nd. -Okay, thanks.
So we have one text here dated Monday, June 20th,
and it says, "Have to get towed to station and back to the yard.
I believe the turbo is going."
It was gonna cost me over $2,000.
Don't start adding things in here that are gonna confuse it.
[chuckles]
Then we have Friday, July 22nd,
"Al, were you able to talk to the guy about the space for the truck?
If not, I will get someone to move it in the morning."
-What was the date on that? -July 22nd.
So you, sir, say, "Al, were you able to talk to the guy
about the space for the truck?
If not, I will get someone to move it in the morning."
You can't talk.
"Truck key is over the top of the driver's seat
in the cubby to your right, above your head when you sit,"
blah, blah, blah, and that's it.
That's in return, that I had been calling him a couple of times,
asking him for the keys for the truck, and then he didn't respond back to me.
So then, at that point, I did, I called because he is true
that his manager did call me and say,
"Hey, man, I need the space in my-- in that yard for my truck."
Okay, that's good. Thank you. That helps him.
Here you go.
Thank you, Byrd.
So I'm going to end with that and--
I have one more question, Mr. Thomas.
So as you stand here right now, sir, after hearing the questions
posed to the plaintiff regarding the tires,
whether they were new, whether they were just new to the vehicle,
whether they were replacement tires, could you understand how
there was a misunderstanding about that?
Yes, sir.
[Adam] And you're not attributing bad faith
to the plaintiff on that fact, are you?
-No. No. -[Adam] Okay.
Thank you. I have nothing further.
-[Patricia] Now we're on the new case. -[Tanya] We're doing the B case.
So now we have Mr. Thomas in your suit against Mr. Brown
for $3,000 for lost wages,
since you were forced to miss two days of work,
due to the lawsuit that Mr. Brown filed against you,
specifically regarding those tires and the misuse of funds.
You typically work 12 to 15-hour shifts,
and you're here because you lost work over that lawsuit.
I asked you one question, which was whether or not
you believe it was bad faith on the part of the now defendant,
Mr. Brown, bringing his lawsuit regarding the tires.
You said, "No, it was a misunderstanding."
That's my only question.
[Tanya] That's a big deal because lawsuits cost people time and money.
It's the cost of a lawsuit.
However, if you want somebody to pay you for the time
that you have to spend fighting a lawsuit,
then you've gotta show that they didn't have any good reason
for bringing the lawsuit, that they made it up.
So, for instance, if you had to take time off of work
to defend against a claim that you damaged the truck
and you never rented the truck,
you know, let's just say he's making it up
because you guys had a fight about something else,
then we would consider it.
But we can't really.
I mean, for my part, you can't just give people money for coming to court
because, you know, that's what we do.
Like, when you have a good faith dispute, this is what you're supposed to do.
So did you ever suggest,
"You know, look, you're really, really wrong,
you don't have any basis for suing me"?
Did you ever say that?
I couldn't. He never said anything to me.
In your complaint, you say that your plan for this $3,000
is to open up a savings account for your young boy...
-Oh! -...who wants to be an orthopedic surgeon.
I don't need the exclamation. [laughs]
I don't need the exclamation.
That's a noble and lofty goal, but we can't give you a verdict
simply because you're gonna do something nice with the money.
What you've gotta show is a legal entitlement to the money,
and, you know, unless you've got facts
that indicate that he just made all of this up,
I don't know that there's much that we can do for you on that point.
Do you have any such facts?
No, just-- I just felt like it was a waste of my time.
[laughs] You are not alone.
Most litigants feel like that, but that's not enough
in order to get somebody to pay you for your time.
Judge DiMango.
Truck drivers don't work every day, do they?
-They couldn't possibly. -[Alvin] No.
There's a law that says that they can only work certain number of days.
So I don't really have any way of knowing
whether those would have been the two days you would have worked,
not work, maybe you were off.
So because of lack of proof on your end, I'm not comfortable
awarding you lost wages because I don't really know
if you were scheduled to work those days,
whether you weren't, and if I'm not mistaken,
I looked through several documents where you gave your wages,
and they varied anywhere from, I think, 900 and something to--
One of them was 18, but most of them were around 11.
So I don't really have any proof that you would have made $1500...
-Mm-hmm. -...on each of those days.
[announcer] Coming up onTribunal Justice.
You know what happens when a truck driver
takes your tractor trailer that has bald tires,
doesn't have a fire extinguisher, got a cracked window.
-Right? -Yes.
The truck gets impounded, gets towed, and you gotta pay for all the repairs,
and you gotta pay for the tow.
[theme music playing]
So based on those two factors and the fact that the plaintiff,
I don't believe, acted in bad faith either.
I think he really felt confused and entitled.
I'm comfortable with where I'm gonna go on this,
without revealing it.
So, gentlemen, we're going to retire to deliberate in this case.
Court stands in recess. Parties are excused.
[theme music playing]
I find it frightening that, in this day and age,
that you can lease a vehicle without any inspection,
with bald tires, with mufflers that are falling off,
knowing that the vehicle is gonna be used to transport gasoline.
I mean, it's frightening, and from the defendant's perspective,
it's frightening that someone with his experience, 15 years,
would take the truck.
Quite frankly, there's no written lease.
So whether it was $750 a week to lease, as the defendant said,
or $900 a week, as the plaintiff said, we don't know.
There's no evidence that these tires that were purchased were new,
as in never used before.
[Tanya chuckles]
What we have is, they were new to the truck.
What the plaintiff took that to mean is open to interpretation.
And that's the reason why the defendant eventually answered my question
and said, you know, he understands it was a misunderstanding,
which is, by the way, why I believe his counterclaim needs to be dismissed,
and likewise, the defendant's.
Now, this is Mr. Brown's case for $3,000
for the two days of missed work,
likewise, needs to be dismissed.
That's my position.
I'll start with Mr. Thomas's case against Mr. Brown.
I agree with you. It should be dismissed.
There's no evidence of bad faith.
And as for Mr. Brown's case against Mr. Thomas,
for the reasons you pointed out, Adam, I would also say it's gotta be dismissed.
There was a definite misunderstanding
about whether or not the parts that were going on the truck
were going to be new as in brand new or new to the vehicle,
as you point out.
I think that they engaged in that same confusion
during the examination.
The plaintiff said it was his assumption that they were new,
and when the defendant used the term "new,"
he meant as in new to the vehicle.
"Replacement" would have been more accurate.
As to the two weeks where there was no payment,
not only do I not have evidence about whether it was driven or not,
but it was the plaintiff's burden to your point,
to show a pattern of payments that would at least
let us come to some reasonable conclusion
about what was owed, and I don't even know that.
I just think that the plaintiff hasn't.
He hasn't presented evidence sufficient to convince me.
It's easy for me, as well, to start with the second case, the B case,
and in the B case, he never does indicate, never has any proof
what he would have made that day, whether he would have worked that day.
So, for me, he did not meet his burden
of establishing that he was out of pocket $3,000.
No evidence that that's what he would have made
even if he were working those days.
So, to me, that should be dismissed.
With regard to the main complaint, I think much of the confusion was,
as I said up on the bench, not using the word "replacement"
in both the writing that we have as well as their speech to one another.
The money that he gave over to the plaintiff
was used in precisely the manner in which he wanted it to be used.
Because the 5,000 is not really an out-of-pocket amount,
it's him creating a number for misuse of this $2600.
He still has those tires on his truck.
Yes, the $1800, once again, no proof that he was paying
what he was paying, how often he was paying it.
So he was really deficient in his proof on all points.
And I wanna dismiss that as well.
-Great. -All right. Unanimous. Thank you.
[theme music playing]
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Byrd. -Mm-hmm.
I'm gonna start, Mr. Brown, with your case against Mr. Thomas.
Part of the reason why it seemed a little confusing
from our perspective is 'cause it was, and the reason it was confusing
was because you came in as a plaintiff without the necessary evidence.
You had no lease, no written lease to indicate when it started,
the lease started, when it ended, whether mileage was included,
who's responsible for repairs, nothing.
And accordingly, it makes our job impossible.
You're the owner of this business, whether it's a trucking business or not.
And moving forward, you gotta give some serious consideration
to how you wanna run that business,
especially a business that you know involves heavy machinery
that's transporting flammable liquids and materials around the country.
You know what happens when a truck driver takes your tractor trailer
that has bald tires, doesn't have a fire extinguisher,
got a cracked window, doesn't have those things, right?
You know what happens.
Yes.
[Adam] The truck gets impounded, gets towed,
and then you got a truck driver out there who has to walk home,
and you gotta pay for all the repairs, and you gotta pay for the tow.
So you have a real financial interest
in making sure that you tighten things up with your business.
As far as your claim for $5,000,
3,200 for misuse of funds,
I think that we pretty much figured that out.
It can be viewed as a misunderstanding.
The tires were new to the vehicle.
There were no representations that they were new.
And I know, Mr. Brown, that you don't agree,
but unfortunately, as the plaintiff, you got the burden of proof,
and you just didn't make it in that regard.
As far as the $1800 for the two weeks of non-payment,
here's the problem.
If we had a lease, we would know what the actual weekly rate was.
You said 900, he said 750.
How do we know?
Well, we could know if you presented us
with proof of his payments that we had here, which you didn't.
The recordkeeping was unfortunately miserable.
So we couldn't even come up with what the actual weekly number was.
So as a result of all of those reasons, your case against Mr. Thomas is dismissed.
Mr. Thomas, your case against Mr. Brown,
where you're seeking $3,000,
we understand losing time from work, never easy.
And you had admirable goals, what you were gonna do with the money.
The problem is that you answered the question honestly
when I asked you whether or not you thought there was bad faith.
If there was bad faith, we might be able to take that into consideration.
And thank you for your honesty, because we knew it wasn't bad faith.
Even if you said it was, you thought so, we weren't gonna believe you anyway.
It was a misunderstanding regarding those tires.
Next time, and hopefully there won't be one,
but if there is, you gotta get your materials together.
You gotta run that business a little better.
Thank you both for your time.
Both your cases are dismissed.
Thank you.
[Byrd] This case is now concluded. Parties are excused.
You may step out.
Not real happy with the decision that they made,
but I do understand.
That's their decision, so...
If I'm gonna spend $2600, I'm gonna put new tires on a truck,
whether it's a 2005 or 2022.
Well, I mean, I put new tires on there.
They just, because I haul fuel and I'm in a gravel yard,
they get chewed up really fast.
If you need tires, you change the old tires out
and put new tires on there.
He didn't know anything about trucking.
He said he was gonna meet with me.
I waited an hour or so at their-- at their yard, and he didn't show up.
And so I just said, "Okay, well, you know what?
I'll take you to court."
I mean, I think we should have had a contract.
Definitely changed the way I do business.
I got the truck out now, and so it's the same way.
Now I do have a lease and I got all that stuff in.
I'm gonna just tighten it up a little bit more.
I'm happy that it's over.
[announcer] Have you been falsely accused?
LetTribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media atTribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]