I work at an automotive repair shop. One of our old employees had an unpaid bill that we turned over to collections; we'll call him Tech A. Tech A is disputing only part of his bill.

Here's the deal:
Tech B had an engine from one of his personal cars on our business's jackstand because he was fixing it after hours. While Tech A was cleaning up the shop one day, he knocked over Tech B's engine. Techs A and B made a verbal agreement that Tech B would get the replacement parts and Tech A would pay to have the repair done, because it had to be subletted out of our shop. This agreement was witnessed by our shop manager.

Now it's a few years later; Tech A says he'll pay for his other parts but not the repair done on Tech B's engine because Tech A is claiming that:
1) our business insurance should have paid for the repair because Tech A was cleaning our shop at the time the accident occurred(talked to my insurance company; aside from this occuring too long ago to even consider filing a claim, my agent said that no, this is not something that falls under the policy because Tech A wasn't working on a customer vehicle, he simply damaged another person's property)
2) Tech A isn't liable because it wasn't his engine(not sure how he can claim this because even though it wasn't his engine, he caused the damage to it)
3) the jackstand was bad and that was why the engine fell over(not true at all; we have used this jackstand on all of our customer's vehicles without any problems; if we had a problem with it, we would have bought a new one)
4) Tech A never agreed to pay for the repair and that we put it on his bill without any authorization(talked to Tech B and my shop manager; both confirmed that Tech A was supposed to pay for any and all repairs to the engine)

So my question is: can I legally force Tech A to pay for the repair to Tech B's engine? Both Tech B and my shop manager are willing to sign affidavits stating what the original agreement was. Is this something that will hold up in small claims?

Yes.The shop manager's testimony should be enough

I work at an automotive repair shop. One of our old employees had an unpaid bill that we turned over to collections; we'll call him Tech A. Tech A is disputing only part of his bill.

Here's the deal:
Tech B had an engine from one of his personal cars on our business's jackstand because he was fixing it after hours. While Tech A was cleaning up the shop one day, he knocked over Tech B's engine. Techs A and B made a verbal agreement that Tech B would get the replacement parts and Tech A would pay to have the repair done, because it had to be subletted out of our shop. This agreement was witnessed by our shop manager.

Now it's a few years later; Tech A says he'll pay for his other parts but not the repair done on Tech B's engine because Tech A is claiming that:
1) our business insurance should have paid for the repair because Tech A was cleaning our shop at the time the accident occurred(talked to my insurance company; aside from this occuring too long ago to even consider filing a claim, my agent said that no, this is not something that falls under the policy because Tech A wasn't working on a customer vehicle, he simply damaged another person's property)
2) Tech A isn't liable because it wasn't his engine(not sure how he can claim this because even though it wasn't his engine, he caused the damage to it)
3) the jackstand was bad and that was why the engine fell over(not true at all; we have used this jackstand on all of our customer's vehicles without any problems; if we had a problem with it, we would have bought a new one)
4) Tech A never agreed to pay for the repair and that we put it on his bill without any authorization(talked to Tech B and my shop manager; both confirmed that Tech A was supposed to pay for any and all repairs to the engine)

So my question is: can I legally force Tech A to pay for the repair to Tech B's engine? Both Tech B and my shop manager are willing to sign affidavits stating what the original agreement was. Is this something that will hold up in small claims?
Small Claims sometimes doesn't want Affidavits but wants witnesses - other than that, the Judge will believe one side or the other. I have, of course, only "heard" your side but it sounds favorable to you.

You as an employer can not force anyone to pay anything, that is for Tech B to sue Tech A over personally. Witnesses have to be in court personally to tesitfy and be cross examined.

There is a outside chance, since the engine was on a shop stand, and Tech A was working and employed at the timme he did the damage, actually there is a slight possibility that the court could hold the shop liable if Tech B decided to sue the shop also

The work on Tech B's motor hasn't been paid for by anyone as of yet. So legally, Tech B cannot sue Tech A because he hasn't paid for anything. They had a verbal agreement that Tech A would pay for the damage that he caused. Due to that agreement, the repair was added to an open invoice that Tech A charged his parts onto.

Additionally, Tech A wasn't doing repair on the motor when the damage occurred, so I don't see how our shop can be held liable.
Hypothetically: if I go to pick up parts for work and cause a motor vehicle accident, I don't ask my employer to pay for the damage because I was getting something for work. I feel the same thing applies here. Tech A thinks our shop should be held liable simply because the accident occurred here. I obviously don't agree.

We have at least 3 people who are willing to attest to the fact that Tech A said he would pay for the repair, which he now denies ever agreeing to. Also, he keeps blaming everyone else for this damage even though he admits he knocked the motor over. Strange, no?

First of all, since Tech B is/was doing his own repairs, why is there any labor costs involved? (unless Tech B has to pay some sort of fee to the shop for the privilege of using the shop facilities after hours for his own personal use, which is what's happening according to your post.) If that's the case then Tech A could be held liable for the added fees resulting from the extra labor that Tech B now has to do to complete the repairs to his engine. Otherwise, Tech A can only be held liable for the cost of the replacement parts for Tech B's engine. And that's assuming that, in the performance of Tech A's cleaning duties, there's no reasonable expectation that Tech B subjected his engine to any potential damage by having it on the jackstand after hours, knowing that Tech A would be cleaning the shop and proceeding with his usual after-hours duties. Basically this sounds like a personal matter between Tech A and Tech B, since Tech B is not a customer, so why is the shop per se even involved, with billing Tech A and turning over the matter to a collections agent? It sounds like the shop has gotten itself in the middle of something where it doesn't need to be.

And sadly if the shop decided to try and get into the middle of this, the shop may have made itself liable.

But in general Tech B can most certainly sue Tech A if the damage done has not been paid for. And Tech B could sue the shop, and /or Tech A after he pays, could then sue shop for part of the damages using the Idea that it was in the shop, and that the damage happened as part of a work accident.

So Tech B needs to stop talking to everying in the shop and merely go to court and sue Tech A. The shop needs to stop "helping" and merely deny any involvement what so ever

Due to that agreement, the repair was added to an open invoice that Tech A charged his parts onto.I think you're going to have a problem here. Essentially, by billing Tech A for labor, you're paying Tech B for working on his own engine on his own time and you want reimbursement from Tech A. I don't think that'll fly in small claims court.
Hypothetically: if I go to pick up parts for work and cause a motor vehicle accident, I don't ask my employer to pay for the damage because I was getting something for work. Actually, in a lot of cases such as the one you hypothetically described, the employer would be at least partially liable for the damages simply because it occurred during and as a result of the course of your employment. I think that you and your coworkers want to give Tech B more benefit of the doubt than he deserves and, by the same token, seem bent on crucifying Tech A above and beyond what's really warranted in this situation. At best, Tech A is responsible for the cost of Tech B's replacement parts, morally if not legally and even that's a bit of a stretch.

Cianci: you need to start reading the entire post before you reply. We are not billing Tech A for labor; a cylinder head needed work, which cannot be done at our shop. As I stated earlier: this work had to be subletted. Our shop had an account with a machine shop and Tech A did not have the money readily available to pay for the repair work. The agreement was that our shop would charge the repair to our account and that Tech A would repay it over time; hence, Tech B got the replacement parts and Tech was supposed to pay for the repair. This is how our shop became involved. We cannot deny involvement because the repair work was billed directly to our shop.

Tech A now denies agreeing to that because he's tight and doesn't want to cough up the cash. Our shop has already paid the machine shop and needs to get reimbursed.

Additionally, I never once said Tech A was here after-hours. We were open for business and people witnessed him knock over Tech B's motor because he was being careless.

OK, but still, why didn't Tech B simply make the arrangements for his own repairs to be done wherever necessary and then settle up with Tech A? It wasn't your place to arrange for Tech B's personal repairs to his personal engine, even though the damage occurred in your shop because Tech A was being "careless." And your initial post did give the impression that this damage occurred after hours. As it is, I have to question why Tech B's engine was permitted to remain on the jackstand during business hours but that's another issue. You chide me for "not reading the entire post before replying" but your initial post didn't clearly explain the entire situation. Furthermore, if I understood your initial post correctly, Tech B's engine was in the process of being repaired when the damage was done to it (as a result of Tech A knocking it off the jackstand.) That gives Tech A an out if he really wants to duck the issue as he can claim that the repairs which needed to be done at a different facility were pre-existing as a result of whatever the initial repairs were needed for and not as a result of him knocking it off the jackstand. Also the argument about the faulty jackstand can weigh in A's favor, even if it's not true as even the mere mention of the possibility can stir up doubts. As Fr. Chuck and I are trying to explain to you, your shop has caught itself in the middle where it doesn't belong. Reading between the lines I get the impression that you all want to help Tech B at Tech A's expense, as a way of "ganging up" on him. Perhaps Tech A was not a popular employee and this is a convenient way of getting back at him. I'm not suggesting that Tech A doesn't have any responsibility at all but it seems like your shop went out of its way to make sure that Tech A got backed into a corner.

This is a libility that a shop has of course when they allow employees to bring in personal projects, So a lot can fall down also into what contracts or paperwork is done in regard to allowing personal property onto the company area. Also at this point it appears you had the motor fixed at the compnay expense and now want the tech who did the damage to pay you back ( getting tired of this A and B things)

So at this point the shop can actually sue for their money back, since they took the liablity of this by having the motor fixed. So at this point, the shop can sue the tech who did the damage to get their money paid back, if the other tech who owns the motor had other damages to collect on, he can also sue for his other damages.

OK, but still, why didn't Tech B simply make the arrangements for his own repairs to be done wherever necessary and then settle up with Tech A? It wasn't your place to arrange for Tech B's personal repairs to his personal engine, even though the damage occurred in your shop because Tech A was being "careless."
As I stated before, Tech A didn't have the funds readily available to pay for the damage; Tech B didn't have the funds either, so that's why our shop charged it to our business account at the machine shop.

And your initial post did give the impression that this damage occurred after hours. As it is, I have to question why Tech B's engine was permitted to remain on the jackstand during business hours but that's another issue.
Our shop tries to be flexible with our employees. We had no use for the jackstand at that point in time, so we allowed Tech B to use it. There's nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, if I understood your initial post correctly, Tech B's engine was in the process of being repaired when the damage was done to it (as a result of Tech A knocking it off the jackstand.) That gives Tech A an out if he really wants to duck the issue as he can claim that the repairs which needed to be done at a different facility were pre-existing as a result of whatever the initial repairs were needed for and not as a result of him knocking it off the jackstand. Also the argument about the faulty jackstand can weigh in A's favor, even if it's not true as even the mere mention of the possibility can stir up doubts.
The damage that was done was not there prior to Tech A knocking over the motor. Our shop manager, who has 20+ years experience and is ASE-certified verifies this. Additionally, if the jackstand had been faulty, why would Tech B be so stupid as to put his motor on it in the first place?

As Fr. Chuck and I are trying to explain to you, your shop has caught itself in the middle where it doesn't belong. Reading between the lines I get the impression that you all want to help Tech B at Tech A's expense, as a way of "ganging up" on him. Perhaps Tech A was not a popular employee and this is a convenient way of getting back at him. I'm not suggesting that Tech A doesn't have any responsibility at all but it seems like your shop went out of its way to make sure that Tech A got backed into a corner.
Nobody backed anyone into a corner. Tech A caused damage and agreed to pay for it; now he doesn't want to so he's making numerous false allegations against our shop and Tech B. How is that "ganging up" on anyone?