Supreme Court affirms vehicular negligence case

On Dec. 31, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment finding Hyoun Min Oh negligent in operating her car and the court’s denial of her motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict in Caiyun Mu v. Hyoun Min Oh, 2015 MP 18.

In February 2010, Oh hit a pedestrian in the San Antonio area near the Sunleader business establishment, an area that was poorly lit.

A witness, who was a passenger in a southbound vehicle, testified that the northbound vehicle, belonging to Oh, was traveling fast before the accident occurred. Oh disputed this at trial, testifying that she was traveling at a normal speed.

Oh also indicated to Sgt. Anthony Macaranas, who responded to the scene on the night of the accident, that she saw a person who may have been crossing on the right side of the road. Oh testified that her vision was clear and the tint on her car, described by the passenger of the southbound vehicle as dark tint, did not obstruct her vision.

Macaranas characterized the damage to Oh’s car as moderate, and noted that when he arrived at the scene, Oh’s car was parked 150 feet away from the pedestrian’s location. As a result of the accident, the pedestrian sustained severe neurological impairment.

On appeal, Oh asserted the evidence was insufficient to establish she was negligent in operating her car; the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict; the jury erred in failing to find contributory negligence; and she was denied a fair trial because Mu’s counsel made improper assertions throughout trial.

The Supreme Court determined the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of negligence. Because the evidence and all reasonable inferences support the jury’s finding, the trial court did not err in denying the directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The high court also declined to set aside the jury’s determination on contributory negligence based on the evidence presented at trial. Finally, the high court concluded Oh received a fair trial despite the alleged impropriety of arguments raised by Mu’s counsel.

The Supreme Court’s opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme15.html. (NMI Judiciary)