Travel agencies found not responsible for death at Tinian cliff

On Dec. 27, 2017, the NMI Supreme Court issued its decision in Ho Chan Jung et al., v. Mode Tour Saipan Corp.et al., 2017 MP 18.

The high court concluded punitive damages are not available under the Commonwealth wrongful death statute. It also reversed the jury’s verdict and trial court’s order finding Mode Tour Saipan Corp. and Mode Tour Network Inc. Korea responsible for the death of Hoseung Joung.

In 2008, Joung fell off from a cliff to his death while participating in a cliff-fishing expedition on Tinian. His brother, wife, and mother sued Mode Tour.

The jury returned a verdict finding Mode Tour Korea 90 percent at fault and Mode Tour Saipan 10 percent at fault for Joung’s death, awarding $2.1 million in damages.

Mode Tour moved to reverse the jury verdict, arguing it had no duty under Commonwealth law to warn Joung of any danger presented by the cliff as it was clearly obvious and apparent.

The court denied Mode Tour’s request, and reapportioned the liability amongst the parties. The court determined MTS was 50 percent at fault, MTN was 30 percent at fault, and Joung was 20 percent at fault. Additionally, the court determined punitive damages were not available in a wrongful death claim.

Appellants appealed the court’s order denying punitive damages. Appellants and MTS appealed the court’s ruling as to the reapportionment of liability. Mode Tour appealed the jury’s verdict and court’s order finding liability.

The Supreme Court determined the Commonwealth wrongful death statute allows recovery of pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are damages that can be estimated and monetarily compensated. Because punitive damages are nonpecuniary, the high court held it is not one of the available remedies contemplated by the CNMI’s wrongful death statute. The Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and the court’s order finding Mode Tour liable. It stated under Commonwealth law, agents and tour operators do not have a duty to disclose information about obvious or apparent dangers. Mode Tour and Joung equally had the opportunity to observe the cliff line and its surroundings during day light. They were both equally capable of assessing the cliff was steep and that there was no guardrail or fence at the edge of the cliff. Because the danger was apparent and obvious, the high court concluded that Mode Tour owed no duty to warn Joung of the apparent danger and therefore, was not liable.

The high court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme17.html. (PR)