Full Opinion

Opinion issued September 15, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00080-CV ——————————— C&C AUTO CARE-SAUL CHICAS, Appellant V. ROBERT S. AMOS JUNIOR, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1179200 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant C&C Auto Care-Saul Chicas (Chicas) appeals the money judgment in favor appellee Robert S. Amos, Jr. for negligent damage caused to his truck’s engine. We affirm. Background In May 2020, Amos took his 2003 Dodge Ram 3500 (the Truck) to Chicas for diagnostic testing. Chicas informed Amos that the diesel engine’s No. 6 fuel injector needed to be replaced, and Amos authorized the replacement. A few days later, Chicas informed Amos that the No. 4 fuel injector also needed to be replaced, which Amos authorized. After a couple days, Amos and a companion went to Chicas’s shop. Chicas escorted them to the Truck, where they saw two empty cans of starter fluid sitting on the dash. Chicas said he needed more time to repair the Truck. Two days later, Amos returned to the shop. Chicas stated that he could not get the Truck started and that it needed either a new engine or new heads. Chicas gave Amos a written estimate of $5,403 for a new engine and labor. Amos took the Truck to a different diesel mechanic, who performed some repairs but found damage to the engine and advised it needed to be overhauled. Amos sued Chicas for the engine damage. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Amos and awarded him $5,403 for a new engine, $5,403 for pain and suffering, and $5,403 for lost wages. Chicas requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the trial court did not issue them. Chicas now appeals the judgment in three issues. 2 Analysis A. Sufficiency of the evidence In his first issue, Chicas argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support certain findings. The standards of review for this issue are well-known. See Powell v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 710 S.W.3d 288, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2024, no pet.).1 Chicas contends the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s liability finding and award of damages for the engine replacement. Amos and his companion testified they saw two empty bottles of starter fluid in the Truck when they visited Chicas’s shop. Amos’s companion saw Chicas hurry to throw the cans in the trash. Amos saw damage to the injector housing that looked like Chicas had been striking it. Although Chicas testified he did not damage the engine, he admitted he had sprayed starter fluid in the engine and that he possibly used too much. Amos testified, and provided written exhibits explaining, that a diesel engine not starting after starter fluid was used means too much fluid was used, reducing lubrication and causing damage to the engine. Amos testified Chicas admitted making a mistake on the Truck’s engine and opined the Truck needed either a new engine or new heads. After Chicas was unable to start the Truck 1 As an initial matter, Chicas argues Amos’s exhibits were not properly admitted. However, immediately after Amos rested his case, the trial court stated the exhibits had been admitted and would be reviewed by the court, to which Chicas made no objection. We hold the exhibits were admitted and are part of the record. 3 following the starter fluid use, he gave Amos a written estimate of $5,403 for a new engine and labor. We conclude this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support findings that Chicas negligently damaged the Truck’s engine, the engine needed to be replaced, and $5,403 was the reasonable cost for the replacement. Chicas next argues Amos cannot recover damages for pain and suffering and lost wages because he did not plead for them. However, Amos presented evidence relevant solely to these damages, Chicas cross-examined Amos on these issues, Amos argued for these damages at closing, and the trial court announced it was awarding these damages and signed a judgment to that effect. We conclude these issues were tried by consent. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 67; Ingram v. Deere, 288 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. 2009). Chicas further contends the evidence is insufficient to support the pain-and- suffering damages.2 It is clear from the evidence and the trial court’s oral findings that these damages were for Amos’s mental anguish and not his physical pain. Thus, we review the damages under the mental-anguish standards. A damages award for mental anguish will survive a legal-sufficiency challenge when the record bears direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of the plaintiff’s mental anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption 2 Chicas does not argue on appeal that mental-anguish damages are not recoverable in a negligent property-damage claim, and so we do not address the issue. 4 in the plaintiff’s daily routine, or when the record demonstrates evidence of a high degree of mental pain and distress that is more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. Zoanni v. Hogan, 715 S.W.3d 47, 89 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2024, pet. denied). In determining an amount of damages for mental anguish, the factfinder cannot pick a random number but has latitude to award an amount that a reasonable person could estimate as fair compensation. Shafaii Investments, Ltd. v. Rivera, No. 01-21-00731-CV, 2025 WL 2485682, at *16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2025, pet. denied). Amos testified he has suffered mental pain because he has not been able to pay his mortgage and support his family for the two-and-one-half years his Truck has been inoperable. We conclude that evidence he may lose his house and has been unable to support his family for such a duration is legally and factually sufficient to support findings that Amos suffered a high degree of mental pain and distress beyond general anxiety and that $5,403 (which equates to around $180 per month) is a reasonable amount to compensate for this anguish. See id. at *15–16 (holding that jury could infer plaintiff suffered mental anguish caused by strain of repairing house without insurance and threats of incarceration and that $20,000 award was not unreasonable). We overrule issue one. 5 B. Expert witness In his second issue, Chicas argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Amos to testify as an expert without being qualified. This issue is not preserved because Chicas did not object to Amos’s lack of qualification during trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Vuong v. Luk, No. 01-11-00178-CV, 2013 WL 6728992, at *3, *10 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 17, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We overrule issue two. C. Findings of fact and conclusions of law In his third issue, Chicas argues the trial court abused its discretion by not issuing written findings of fact and conclusions of law. We presume that Chicas preserved error on this issue and that the trial court erred. A trial court’s failure to file findings and conclusions is presumed reversible error, unless the record affirmatively shows that the requesting party was not harmed by their absence. Barger v. Barger, No. 01-15-00659-CV, 2016 WL 7473944, at *4 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). During the very short bench trial, the trial court heard from Amos, Chicas, and one other witness. After closing arguments, the trial judge orally stated her findings in detail. On appeal, Chicas does not explain how the lack of written findings prevented him from briefing any potential issue. To the contrary, his brief includes thorough challenges to the trial court’s findings. See Livingston v. 6 Livingston, 537 S.W.3d 578, 596 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (lack of findings does not affect appellate court’s ability to review issues when trial court’s reasons for judgment are apparent from record and appellant has thoroughly briefed issues). Chicas was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. We overrule issue three. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Andrew Johnson Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. 7