Golfer awarded $1.5-M wants new trial

A golfer who has already been awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages by a jury last month now wants a new trial on a civil case he had filed against Lau Lau Development Inc. and Shimizu Corp., to settle the issue of future earnings losses.

On May 24, 2000 the jury ruled that Juan M. San Nicolas was entitled to receive $10,983.80 for medical expenses; $190,000 for loss of future earnings; and $1,299,016.20 for pain and suffering.

He was playing golf on Nov. 6, 1995 when he fell into a pit at the edge of the white tee box at the 5th hole, landed on a big rock and caused him to sustain leg injuries.

But Mr. San Nicolas was not happy with the $190,000 payment for loss of future earnings because the jury only relied on the testimony of the defense witness which calculated his past earnings during the years 1991-1995.

According to a motion filed by Mr. San Nicolas, the court was highly prejudicial when it did not allow him to present the testimony of certified public accountant David Burger in the rebuttal case just because his name was not included in the pre-trial witness list.

He said the testimony of Mr. Burger would have made the difference on the issue of loss of future earnings.

The potential extent of punitive damages is substantial as Shimizu Corp. had a net worth of $1,196,499,000 as of December 31, 1999. Based on earlier court rulings, Mr. San Nicolas would have received punitive damages amounting to $170,979,707 against the Japanese firm.

Saipan Lau Lau Development Inc. has been able to borrow more than $45 million without collateral of any kind from its sister company Shimizu Finance International U.S.A. in New York City.

“It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a punitive damages award of as much as $5 million would be appropriate. It would take that much to teach the company a lesson not to endanger its patrons in the future and such an award would not do structural damage to Saipan Lau Lau,” he said.

At the same time, Mr. San Nicolas claimed that the imposition of a 12-hour work day schedule must have created pressure on the jury “to scrap the punitive damages issue in Phase I so that they could escape from what must have seemed a well-nigh penal and punitive situation under the control of court’s marshals.”

The jury was required by the court staff to work from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. San Nicolas said he was never informed of the jury schedule and given the opportunity to object to it.

“This onerous schedule was neither needed nor reasonable. Imposing a 12-hour work-day on members of the jury necessarily created the most likely possibility that the deliberations would be rushed and that jurors might every well be pressured to compromise on critical issues just to put an end to their misery,” he added.