Rowe v Mr Mechanic the Mobile Mechanics Pty Ltd
[2014] QCAT 452
•10 September 2014
| CITATION: | Rowe v Mr Mechanic The Mobile Mechanics Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 452 |
| PARTIES: | Edward Rowe (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Mr Mechanic The Mobile Mechanics Pty Ltd t/as Mr Mechanic (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO2582-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 25 June 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 September 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Work performed – reuse of customers parts – warranty voided – standard of work performed – evidentiary onus – assumption about work performed at a later date – relevance of assumption in determining discharge of onus of proof |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Edward Rowe |
| RESPONDENT: | Bruce Taylor, Director |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
The applicant Mr Rowe claims the sum of $7,114.76 being the cost of repairs replacements accommodation fuel and refund due to the alleged improper or substandard manner in which four sets of bearings were removed and repacked on his tandem caravan by the respondent Mr Mechanic on 15 April 2013.
Background and evidence
Mr Rowe and his partner had decided to take their caravan to Arnhem Land Northern Territory for use as accommodation whilst they worked there as contractors. They arranged with Mr Mechanic to have the four year old caravan’s four wheel bearings serviced. Mr Rowe did not envisage any replacement of bearings or inner or outer seals just the pulling out, cleaning and repacking with grease of the existing bearings and resealing. The job was carried out by Mr Mechanic on 15 April 2013. Subsequently after stopping on about 11 May 2013 near Katherine in the Northern Territory and some 2,000 kilometres later one kerbside wheel was found to be missing.
Daniel Gregg employee of Mr Mechanic a qualified mechanic with nine years experience and holding a Certificate 3 in Light Vehicle Automotive (Qld) as well as being a Queensland Transport qualified inspector attended premises at Wynnum West on 15 April 2013. According to his affidavit his job description was ‘customer wants bearings removed and repacked in a caravan’. He stated that when parts were removed he ‘phoned Mr Rowe and notified him that the dust seals were in poor condition and of the need to replace with new parts rather than reuse’.[1] He stated the seals were designed for single use only.[2]
[1]Affidavit of Daniel Gregg filed 25 June 2014 at [2].
[2]Ibid at [3].
Mr Gregg further stated that ‘Mr Rowe said he was going away and either couldn’t find new bearings or seals or didn’t have time so was happy to reuse even after I advised they were designed for single use only’.
According to Mr Gregg Mr Rowe ‘replied that he had packed the bearings and reused the seals at least once before and they hadn’t had a problem so just do the job’.[3]
[3]Ibid at [4] and [5].
Mr Rowe said that it was never a case of reusing bearings that he had taken out and put in again. Rather he had repacked bearings before in his some 40 years of doing his own mechanical work; that though the caravan was four years old the bearings and seals were only 12 months old; that he Mr Rowe had consulted several mechanics of standing who all indicated that inner and outer seals could be reused after a bearings service (i.e. repacked with new grease) so long as the seals were undamaged; that he was convinced that Mr Gregg had firstly failed to properly grease the bearings as evidenced by, he said, the black low viscosity of old grease on the inner bearings and new grease on the outer bearings and outer portion of the wheel hub; that at the time reassembly by Mr Gregg was not properly carried out in that it was evident the sheer or split pin holding the castle nut in place had failed; and with a loose castle nut easily undone the wheel simply came off.
Mr Rowe’s explanation was supported he said by the absence of any indicia of overheating; that in overheating of bearings the inner ring on the bearings usually welds; the bearing itself will weld to stub axle; that here the hub rolled over the stub axle; that there was no overheating or welding or what might be described as melting.
Mr Rowe reiterated that he felt there was ‘no problem’ with seals and bearings but there was with Mr Gregg’s workmanship who in putting the castle nut back on did not then put the split pin back in to lock the wheels.
Mr Gregg stated in his affidavit the procedure he followed on the job as:
I removed the wheels
I cleaned all bearings in petrol
I repacked them with suitable grease
I advised Mr Rowe of the need to replace the dust seals with new seals
When he declined this, I replaced the existing seals
I tightened all nuts
I replaced split pins
I replaced hub covers
I replaced wheels
I spent the appropriate time on this job I did no rush or take short cuts and I followed normal procedure for a job which I have done many times before[4]
[4]Ibid at [10]-[19].
Mr Mechanic’s tax invoice dated 15 April 2013 records a total charge of $175 to remove, clean, repack wheel bearings constituted by $160 for labour and $15 for high temperature grease. Under the heading ‘Job Repair Details’ appear the words ‘removed and replaced wheel bearing grease all wheels reused dust hub seals customers request’.
Mr Gregg believed the ‘dust seals failed’; that grease contaminated by dust will make it appear less viscous and discolour.
Mr Gregg posed the question ‘had I not removed the seals at all as stated in your mechanics report how would I have told you on the phone they were worn and why would I have noted this specifically on the invoice’. Additionally he posed the question that if the wheel fell of somewhere along the highway and the loss is not noticed how can it be stated that the lost wheel was due to a missing split pin.
Conclusions
Mr Gregg attended Mr Rowe’s premises at Wynnum West on 15 April 2013. He took just over an hour to carry out the job which was to remove the bearings in the four wheel caravan and repack them. Sometime later on about 11 May 2013 whilst travelling in the Northern Territory and heading to Arnhem Land and whilst stopped near Katherine it was noticed that one of the kerbside wheels was missing.
At this point the caravan had travelled some 2,000 kilometres since the bearings were repacked with grease.
Mr Rowe’s argument that the sort of damage he says he was able to identify must have been due to the manner in which Mr Gregg greased and repacked the bearings and reassembled parts is no more than an assumption which if accepted sits neatly to impose liability on Mr Mechanic. Mr Rowe is not a qualified mechanic. He was not present at the time the bearings were repacked with grease. Mr Rowe surmised that the split pin must not have properly been put through the castle nut to lock the wheel; that such being the case the hub rolled off the stub axle causing the wheel to fall off; that if the bearings failed there would be overheating and a welding of bearings to the stubb axle. Once again that is Mr Rowe making statements about what he said must have happened. The fact of the matter is it is not known how the wheel came off. No one saw it come off. At best Mr Rowe gives his unqualified opinion as to how he thinks the wheel came off after some 2,000 kilometres of travel.
Mr Gregg, as a qualified motor mechanic, by affidavit, gave a detailed account of the procedure he followed to repack the bearings as well as a cogent explanation as to why he felt failure occurred ie primarily failure of reused dust seals.
The statement of Ron Rowe, Mr Rowe’s brother, is an opinion given from afar and well after the event.
The onus rests with Mr Rowe to establish, on balance, the cause of failure and that the cause of failure was directly referrable to Mr Gregg’s workmanship. There is not sufficient/conclusive evidence here to identify the cause of failure let alone attribute liability to Mr Gregg/Mr Mechanic.
The Tribunal considers liability for the failure complained of has not been established and dismisses Mr Rowe’s claim.
0
0
0