Fenwick v Watabe Guam, Inc [2009] GUSC 1; 2009 Guam 01 (21 January 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUA

JOSHUA W. FENWICK and ERLINE C. FENWICK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V

WATABE GUAM, INC., OCEANIC RESOURCES, INC.,
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY,
FRANK J. MARTIN AIA and MCL/MARTIN
CRISTOBAL AND LAGUANA,
Defendants-Appellees,

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA05-020
Superior Court Case No.: CV0426-01

OPINION

Filed: January 21, 2009
Cite as: 2009 Guam 1

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted on February 22, 2007
Hagåtña, Guam

For Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayson W.S. Wong, Esq. Law Offices of Wayson Wong A Professional Corporation 142 Seaton Blvd., Ste. 101 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

For Defendant-Appellee Oceanic Resources, Inc. John D. Osborn, Esq. Elyze J. McDonald, Esq. Carlsmith Ball LLP Bank of Hawaii Bldg., Ste. 401 134 W. Soledad Ave., P.O. Box BF Hagåtña, Guam 96932-5027

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice Pro Tempore.

BENSON, J.:

[1] Plaintiffs-Appellants, Joshua W. Fenwick and Erline C. Fenwick (the “Fenwicks”) appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for a new trial and the judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of Defendants-Appellees, Oceanic Resources, Inc. (ORI) and American Home Assurance Company. Specifically, the Fenwicks argue that the trial court erred in: (1) denying their motion for a new trial; (2) providing both a proximate cause jury instruction and a legal cause jury instruction; and (3) excluding a companion photo from exhibit G-13. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. Further, while both a proximate cause jury instruction and a legal cause jury instruction should not have been given, this error was not prejudicial. Finally, the trial court did not err in excluding the photo. Accordingly we affirm the Judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2]