Golf course: $1.5M for fractured leg too much

Lao Lao Bay Golf Resort with co-defendants, Shimizu Corporation and the Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. has filed a legal motion asking the Superior Court to vacate a jury verdict that awarded local golfer Juan M. San Nicolas $1.5 million.

Mr. San Nicolas sustained fractures to his right leg in a golfing accident on November 6, 1995.

Defense lawyers Randall Todd Thompson and Vicente T. Salas stated in the motion that the $1.5 million verdict is “against the weight of the evidence” and “grossly excessive by any conventional notion of valuation.”

Among others, the two lawyers note that the total verdict awarded to Mr. San Nicolas amounts to 137 times the $10,984 he incurred for medical expenses.

According to them, jury verdicts in broken-leg cases normally amount to no more than “ten times medical.” In this case, that would mean a verdict of $109,984, instead of the $1.5 million actually awarded.

Mr. Thompson and Mr. Salas cited a case law holding that a verdict awarding a plaintiff damages in excess of 100 times medical “makes no sense” and should be vacated.

The lawyers quoted other cases stating that “the sky is not the limit” for jury verdicts and that judges have a duty to vacate or reduce excessive awards. According to their research, no previous CNMI jury has ever awarded an injured party in excess of $200,000 for a broken leg.

The defense lawyers also argued that the $1.5 million verdict is inconsistent with the medical evidence presented at trial.

They stated that both testifying physicians agree that San Nicolas had experienced an “excellent” recovery, that only his right leg had been affected by the accident and he had sought virtually no medical attention and had been taking no pain medications.

Further, under the worst case scenario the plaintiff faces the threat of “manageable” arthritis in the affected leg.

Mr. Thompson and Mr. Salas stated that Mr. San Nicolas’ $1.5 million broken leg award is so unusually high that it was reported internationally by the Associated Press wire service when the verdict was announced back in May 2000.

Lao Lao Bay and other defendants are also calling for a new trial based upon prejudicial statements or arguments made by Plaintiff’s then attorney Theodore R. Mitchell during the course of the trial.

In addition, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Salas argued that the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the case due to the contributory negligence of Mr. San Nicolas.

In this regard, the lawyers contended that Mr. San Nicolas “virtually admitted” his own negligence by testifying that he was walking backwards immediately before he fell, failed to look where he was going, and was not paying attention to his surroundings.

The jury’s verdict was handed down on May 24, 2000. The trial judge, now Supreme Court Justice John A. Manglona, entered judgment on May 26, 2000.

However, the judgment was later deemed by the Commonwealth Supreme Court to be “non-final” because it did not address the liability of insurer Tokio Marine, one of the defendants named in the action.

The case remained in limbo until Dec. 1, 2000, when the CNMI Supreme Court held that Mr. San Nicolas had prematurely seized $800,056.38 from the bank accounts of the defendants, and that he must return the money while defendants pursue their post-trial motions and appeal.

Mr. San Nicolas refused to deposit the funds in court when ordered to do so back in July 2000, and he faces pending contempt and sanctions proceedings in the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome of the current motions to vacate the verdict.

Should Judge Manglona grant the Lao Lao Bay motions, a new trial can be ordered that may reduce the amount of the verdict or dismiss the case entirely.