Jonah v Kosrae [2000] FMKSC 3; 9 FSM Intrm. 335 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000) (1 March 2000)

KOSRAE STATE COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite case as Jonah v Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm 335 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000)

DONALD JONAH,
Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF KOSRAE and KOSRAE UTILITIES AUTHORITY,
Defendants.

___________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 32-95

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Aliksa B. Aliksa
Acting Chief Justice

Trial: June 15-16, 1999
Decided: March 1, 2000

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:
Delson Ehmes, Esq.
P.O. Box 1018
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant (Kosrae):
Ronald Bickett
Office of the Kosrae Attorney General
P.O. Box 1301
Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944

For the Defendant (KUA):
Ron Moroni, Esq.
P.O. Box 1618
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Property - Tidelands
The waters, land, and other natural resources within the marine space of Kosrae are public property, the use of which the state government shall regulate by law in the public interest, subject to the right of the owner of land abutting the marine space to fill in and construct on or over the marine space. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 340 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Property - Tidelands
All marine areas below the ordinary high water mark belong to the Kosrae state government. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 340 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Constitutional Law - Case or Dispute - Standing; Property - Public Lands; Property - Tidelands
Private individuals lack standing to assert claims on behalf of the public and cannot bring claims against the state on behalf of the public with respect to state land. Therefore a private landowner does not have standing to sue the state with respect to black rocks deposited below the ordinary high water mark because that is state land, but he does have standing to sue with respect to black rocks located above the high water mark and on his land. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 341 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Negligence
Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances. Duties of care differ according to the circumstances. The exact parameters of each person's responsibilities towards others will be defined through time by judicial decisions and statutes. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 341 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Negligence
The elements required to prevail on a negligence claim are: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by that breach. Only when there is a duty of care, breach of this duty, damage caused by the breach, and determination of the value of the damage can there be a liability for negligence. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 341 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Negligence
Because the state had a duty of care to construct the seawall in a manner which a reasonably careful person would have done in similar circumstances and a reasonably careful person would have constructed the seawall in accordance with accepted methods of seawall construction in Kosrae at that time during the late 1980s, and because at that time black rock was routinely used for seawall construction as the best method to dissipate wave energy from the ocean, the state did not breach its duty to, and is not liable to the plaintiff for negligence by using black rocks for erosion control measures and construction of the seawall. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 341 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Nuisance
Nuisance is generally regarded as a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of another's land caused by intentional and unreasonable conduct, or caused unintentionally by negligent or reckless conduct, or by the performance of an abnormally dangerous activity. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 341-42 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Nuisance
The first step of the two-step analysis for nuisance requires that there be a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s land. A substantial interference is actual, material, physical discomfort, material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt, or significant harm, that affects the health, comfort, or property of those who live nearby. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 342 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Nuisance
The second step of the analysis for nuisance describes the actions of the potential liable party. The interference with the use and enjoyment of another's land must be caused by intentional and unreasonable conduct, or caused unintentionally by negligent or reckless conduct, or the performance of an abnormally dangerous activity. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 342 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Nuisance
A party is not liable for nuisance when there is no evidence that the party intentionally caused the erosion damage, or that its actions were reckless, unreasonable, or abnormally dangerous and when it has already been shown that the party was not negligent. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 342 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Property - Tidelands; Torts
A Kosrae state regulation that covers all persons wanting to fill in and construct on or over land below the ordinary high water mark does not provide any private right of action and cannot be the basis of a claim against the state for violation of law or regulation even if it did not have a specific plan for the seawall that was part of a road-widening project for which it had an overall plan. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 342-43 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Trespass
When a plaintiff has been granted the right to utilize the land through land use agreements he holds a sufficient possessory interest to give him standing to maintain an action for trespass. It is unnecessary to have a fee simple title to land in order to bring an action for trespass. Jonah v. Kosrae, 9 FSM Intrm. 335, 343 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2000).

Torts - Trespass