Where evidence indicated that skylight did not survive the force of Hurricane Ofa, but replacement skylight survived Hurricane Val, a hurricane of substantially greater force than that of Ofa, there was sufficient evidence for Court to conclude that Appellant’s skylight was negligently designed and constructed. Meredith & Associates v. Blue Pacific Management Corp., 1 A.S.R.3d 4 (1997).
Whether trial court employed term, res ipsa loquitur, with pristine acuity is not important, so long as there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Meredith & Associates v. Blue Pacific Management Corp., 1 A.S.R.3d 4 (1997).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits the factfinder to infer negligence from circumstantial evidence. Meredith & Associates v. Blue Pacific Management Corp., 1 A.S.R.3d 4 (1997).
Trial
court's taking judicial notice of comparable hurricane wind strength data was
of little consequence as these statistics did not relate to any material,
disputed fact. Meredith
& Associates v. Blue Pacific Management Corp., 1 A.S.R.3d 4 (1997).
The jury’s finding that an injury had occurred was not clearly erroneous where there was testimony that the victim “experienced pain in his legs, side and back.” Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
Despite assertion that breathalyzer results were erroneous, evidence that Appellant crashed into another vehicle as he was overtaking it, that he admitted to having drunken two beers and a shot of tequila, that he was observed with red eyes and alcohol breath, and that he failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test and refused to perform the other two field sobriety tests was sufficient to support jury’s finding that he was driving under the influence. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
For an appellant to prevail on a claim of insufficient evidence, he must show that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Suani v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 28 (1997).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence the inquiry is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except guilt, but whether the trial court could reasonably arrive at its verdict. Suani v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 28 (1997).
To establish possession of a controlled substance the government must present evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the contraband. Suani v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 28 (1997).
Mere fact appellant was defensive and angry under police interrogation and that he lived 90-120 feet from the two marijuana plants growing in nearby bush land is insufficient evidence to permit a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of a controlled substance. Suani v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 28 (1997).
Defendant’s counterclaim for negligence and shoddy workmanship not proven where inspection of boat failed to establish “delamination” claim and offer of proof nothing more than an unfounded guess as to damages. Ioane v. Aiga Tautai O Samoa, 1 A.S.R.3d 96 (1997).
Adequate
circumstantial evidence existed to prove fraud where judgment debtor’s spouse
could not speak English or Samoan and did not possess sufficient business
experience to run a store, where judgment debtor conceived of the business
plan, ran the business, and received considerable non-cash compensation, and
where other aspects of the business’ operation were tainted with fraud. G.H.C. Reid & Co., Inc. v.
K.M.S.T., 1 A.S.R.3d 106 (1997).
Where defendant’s oral representations, the parties’ respective intentions, the business custom and usage, the nature of the employment, the situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the case all supported conclusion that plaintiff’s employment would be terminated only for just cause, “at-will presumption” effectively rebutted. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).
Statement in previous case acknowledging disputed debt will be viewed as admission and shall corroborate debt’s existence. Samoa Sharkfin Trading Co. v. Ho Py Hong, 1 A.S.R.3d 143 (1997).
Circumstances substantiated accord and satisfaction where purported consideration from defendant included equipment, cooler and agreement not to compete, where plaintiff did not dispute receiving equipment or cooler, and where evidence proved defendant had not engaged in business for five years prior to lawsuit. Samoa Sharkfin Trading Co. v. Ho Py Hong, 1 A.S.R.3d 143 (1997).