Koike v Ponape Rock Products [1986] FMPSC 2; 3 FSM Intrm. 57 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986) (5 November 1986)

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, 3 FSM Intrm. 57 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986)

[3 FSM Intrm. 57]

FELIX KOIKE and SUSA KOIKE,
Plaintiffs,

v.

PONAPE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.,
JACK ADAMS, PONAPE AGRICULTURE
AND TRADE SCHOOL,
Defendants.

WALERIANO SHAM and SABINA SHAM,
Plaintiffs,

v.

PONAPE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.,
JACK ADAMS, and YVETTE ADAMS,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7-83

CONSOLIDATED, TRIED AND
DECIDED TOGETHER

OPINION

Edwel H. Santos
Chief Justice
Pohnpei Supreme Court
November 5, 1986

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:
Robert L. Keogh
Attorney-at-Law
P.O. Box GZ
Agana, Guam 96910

For the Defendants (Jack Adams/PRP):
Paul Lawler
Attorney-at-Law
P.O. Box GZ
Agana, Guam 96910

For the Defendant (PATS):
Edwin Rauzi
State Attorney
Pohnpei State Government
Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

* * * *

[3 FSM Intrm. 58]

HEADNOTES

Courts; Custom and Tradition
The Pohnpei State Supreme Court may look to Pohnpeian customs and concepts of justice when there are no statutes governing the subject matter, but it may also draw from common law concepts when they are appropriate. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 64 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Corporations - Joint Enterprise
A project that has a number of acts or objectives for a limited period of time and is entered into by associates under such circumstances that all have an equal voice in directing the conduct of the enterprise, is a joint enterprise. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 65 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Negligence
The common law definition of negligence, which includes the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent person would use in a similar situation, is consistent with the Pohnpeian concept of civil wrong. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 66 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Contributory Negligence
An employee who is performing a difficult task in one way and is given contrary instructions by his employer and must be mindful of his employer's instructions or face a possible reprimand is not guilty of contributory negligence. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 66 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Negligence;
Corporations - Joint Enterprise
The Pohnpei State Supreme Court will apply an English principle to the situation of a joint enterprise such that when parties to a joint enterprise, or their agents, perform work on another man's property and cause damage to the other man or his property through failure to exercise due care, then they are liable. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 67 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Contributory Negligence;
Custom and Tradition
The common Pohnpeian custom of assisting a person in need should not be dispensed with in order to allow the defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk to be raised. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 67 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Contributory Negligence
Conduct on an employee's part, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to

[3 FSM Intrm. 59]

conform for his own protection, constitutes contributory negligence. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 67 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk typically involves one of the following situations: (1) plaintiff has given his consent in advance to relieve defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury front known risk arising from what defendant is to do or leave undone, (2) plaintiff voluntarily enters into a relation with defendant, with knowledge that defendant will not protect him against the risk; (3) plaintiff is aware of a risk already created by defendant's negligence, but proceeds to encounter it by voluntarily taking part even after the danger is known to him. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 67-68 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Negligence - Duty of Care
In a jurisdiction like Pohnpei, where individual and economic development is beginning to take place and people are not quite sophisticated about the uses or proper handling of certain machinery or equipment introduced into the community to support such development, the procurer, user, owner, or seller of such equipment or machinery must take precautionary measures to educate people, either through written or oral explanation, about the proper handling, operation or storing of such equipment or machinery, and to inform them about the harm that might result if such equipment or machinery is not properly handled, operated or stored. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 68 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Negligence - Nonfeasance
An employer who recognizes the potential danger of a work situation, but who fails to take steps to reduce the danger or to warn his employees of the danger, is guilty of nonfeasance and negligence. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 69 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts - Negligence - Respondeat Superior
A corporation and its shareholders are liable for the wrongful acts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 70 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Corporations - Liability
Although many family-incorporated enterprises commingle family and business affairs, the Pohnpei Supreme Court will not make a family's personal assets available to satisfy a judicially mandated monetary award because there is still limited knowledge of business laws in Pohnpei. Koike v. Ponape-Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57, 70 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Torts; Custom and Tradition
According to the Pohnpeian view of civil wrongs, if one damages another's property, he must repair or replace it; if one injures another person, he must apologize and provide assistance to the injured Person and his family; if one kills another person, he must provide the assistance that the victim would have provided and he may have to offer another person to take the

[3 FSM Intrm. 60]