|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands |
SHIRO NGIRCHELUI and NAORU NAPOLEON,
Appellants
v.
ANDRES REBECHONG,
Appellee
Civil Action No. 371
Trial Division of the High
Court
Palau District
October 12, 1967
Appeal from judgment finding defendants liable for injury to plaintiff's boat. The Trial Division of the High Court, D. Kelly Turner, Associate Justice, held that although defendants admitted taking plaintiff's boat without permission, plaintiff could not recover damages unless he established that the damage complained of was the direct result of the wrong done by the defendants.
Reversed and remanded.
1. Appeal and Error - Scope of Review - Facts
On appeal, sufficiency of the evidence when it relates to the weight or probative values of conflicting evidence may not be considered.
2. Appeal and Error - Scope of Review - Facts
When the record on appeal shows a complete absence of proof on an essential element the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may be considered by the appellate court.
3. Torts - Negligence - Proximate Cause
The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient 'intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
4. Torts – Damages - Generally
In order to recover damages the mere occurrence of a wrongful act is not enough, it must be shown the wrong caused the damage.
5. Torts - Damages - Generally
Liability for damages done to another must be based upon the causal connection between the alleged wrong and the injury of which complaint is made and only when the damage is the direct result of the wrong done is recovery for the damage permitted.
6. Evidence – Opinion - Generally
Question asked of plaintiff at trial as to who had damaged his property should not have called for his opinion or conclusion but should have brought forth the facts upon which plaintiff based his opinion; it would then become the obligation of the trial judge to form his own opinion and conclusion.
7. Evidence - Generally
Where answer was not sufficiently clear to permit any conclusion as to the existence of the relationship, if any, between the wrongful use of the property by the defendants and the subsequently discovered damage to the property, court would refer the case back to the trial judge for the purpose of re-opening the matter in clarification of that point.
8. Evidence – Generally
Uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence must be taken as true in the sense that it cannot be arbitrarily disregarded.
9. Evidence – Burden of Proof
Reasonable probability is all that is required of evidence in a civil case to support a factual conclusion.
10 Civil Procedure - Damages
In the absence of contradiction court must accept on appeal trial court's findings as to the amount of damage unless there is obvious error.
11. Judgments - Damages
Plaintiff, if entitled to recover at all, may not have judgment for a greater amount than is shown by his proof; the judgment amount must conform to the evidence.
|
Assessor:
|
JUDGE PABLO RINGANG
|
|
Interpreter:
|
HARUO I. REMELIIK
|
|
Counsel for Appellants:
|
WILLIAM O. WALLY
|
|
Counsel for Appellee:
|
H. ULENGCHONG
|
TURNER, Associate Justice
RECORD OF HEARING
Hearing on appeal from judgment in District Court Civil Case No. 1174 in favor of the Plaintiff, held before Associate Justice D. Kelly Turner at Koror, Palau Islands, September 30, 1967.
No witness appeared for either the appellants or appellee at the hearing on appeal.
OPINION
The issue at the trial and on appeal was whether or not the Defendants damaged the Plaintiff's motor and boat, and if they did, the amount of the damage incurred. By their answer, Defendants admit the wrongful taking of the Plaintiff's boat. They denied the injury claimed.
The notice of appeal challenged the sufficiency of proof of damage. Appellants' appeal argument refined the point, in support of the general proposition Plaintiff failed to prove damages, by urging there was no showing the wrongful acts of the Defendants, that is, the unauthorized use of Plaintiff's boat, caused the damage for which Plaintiff sought recovery. In other words, there was no proof of proximate cause, an essential element to recovery of any amount.
[1] On appeal, sufficiency of the evidence when it relates to the weight or probative values of conflicting evidence may not be considered. Here there is no problem of weighing conflicting evidence because the only testimony in the record is from the Plaintiff.
[2] However, when the record on appeal shows a complete absence of proof on an essential element, then the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may be considered by the appellate court. Here the appellants raise the question of sufficiency of proof of the relationship between Defendants' acts and the damage which Plaintiff proved, without contradiction, occurred to his motor.
[3] Proximate cause is defined in 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 50, as:-
"The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred."
The question of this case then is: Did the use of the Plaintiff's boat by the Defendants cause the damage which Plaintiff seeks to recover?
[4, 5] The mere occurrence of a wrongful act is not enough. It must be shown the wrong caused the damage. The admitted fact the Defendants wrongfully used Plaintiff's boat is not sufficient. To permit recovery it must be shown that the improper use caused or was the proximate cause of the damage. Liability for damages done to another must, of course, be based upon the causal connection between the alleged wrong and the injury of which complaint is made. Only when the damage is the direct result of the wrong done is recovery for the damage permitted.
The only testimony shown in the record amounts to a conclusion of the Plaintiff, which, had it been objected to by Defendants' counsel was inadmissible. The record shows the following question and answer:-
"Q. All of these parts that you have just mentioned, were they really broken by these two boys?
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/other/TTLawRp/1967/29.html
