Vol. 35 No.32
       ©2007 Marianas Variety
Monday, April 30, 2007 www.mvariety.com
Serving the CNMI for 35 years
 

© 2007 Marianas Variety
Published by Younis Art Studio Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Email :
mvariety@vzpacifica.net
Appellate court upholds trial court;s ruling on negligence

By Bernadette H. Carreon
Horizon news staff

The appellate division of the Supreme Court upheld its decision regarding a negligence case concerning a road in Ngermid.
The case involved two lots abutting the main road into Ngermid. In 1994, appellants Aribuk and Hilaria Renguul Tkel began constructing a two-story house on a lot on the downhill side of the road.
Court documents showed that the second story of the house and a hollow block retaining wall near the road were built at that time.]
In Oct. 1998, Hanpa began to level the lot directly across the street and uphill from the Tkel’s house and after consulting with an engineer and the Environmental Quality Protection Board, Hanpa began to level the lot directly across the street and uphill from Tkel’s house.
After then consulting with an engineer and the EQPB, Hanpa installed a drainage ditch and sedimentation pond, at the same time the Tkels built the first floor of their house and that both projects were completed in the early 1999.
The court further showed that starting in August 1999, the Tkel’s tenants began writing letters complaining that the water was seeping into the lower floor of the house and when a storm hit Plaau in 2001, flooding cause significant damage to the house and the tenant moved out.
At the trial the Tkel’s submitted evidence of damages in the form of lost rents and repair costs amounting to $43,236.83.
The trial court then found that Hanpa’s conduct in leveling the land and altering the natural flow of water was negligent and a substantial cause of the Tkel’s damages.
In the decision the trial court then ruled that the Tkel’s could not recover all of their losses from Hanpa because other innocent causes over which Hanpa has no control contributed to the damage.
The trial court then issued a decision allocating 40 percent to Hanpa’s conduct and by inference 60 percent to other factors.
Both parties appealed the case, the division however said that the trial court did not commit any error when it ruled allocating some of the negligence to Hanpa.