ALOKOA SEYMOUR v. A. JOE, J. TULENSRU, KSA STATE

This case was tried on November 22, 1988. Delson Ehmes of Micronesian Legal Services Corporation represented the plaintiff, Alokoa Seymour, Richard Kaminski, Assistant Attorney General represented the State of Kosrae, Alokoa Joe and John Tulensru (a/k/a John Tolennoa).

During the trial of this case, conflicting evidence was presented to the Court. After hearing the witnesses, weighing the evidences, and after due deliberation, this Court makes the following findings of fact.

(2) At about 5 p.m. on September 7, 1983, Kosrae Police Officers Alokoa Joe arid John Tulensru,.while on duty, were driving past the plaint'iff's place of employment on their way to patrol at the airport.

(3) When the officers were driving past the plaintiff, plaintiff shouted at the officers. The officers stopped their vehicle and officer Joe got out of-the vehicle in response to the plaintiff's calls.

(4) Plaintiff then demanded thatfficer Joe pay for two bags of cement. Officer Joe requested that the plaintiff wait until officer Joe was off-duty to discuss the matter. At

(5) At this point, while there is some dispute as to which party was the first to touch the other, the weight of the evidence suggests that plaintiff accosted Officer Joe, a staff le took place and officer Tulensru assisted officerJoe in subduing the struggling plaintiff, handcuffing him, placing him under arrest for obstructing justice, putting him in the rear of the officers' pickup truck, and transporting him to the Kosrae jail.

(6) Officers Joe and Tulensru used only such force as was necessary to safely subdue, arrest and transport the plaintiff to jail.

(7) The Officers actions were lawful, within the scope of their employment and there was probable cause for the plaintiff's arrest.

(8) All damages and injuries occurring to plaintiff were caused either directly or indirectly by plaintiff's own actions.

Plaintiff Seymour has sought recovery from Kosrae State and the two .Police officers under ten separate claims for relief, to wit:

Since the facts show that officers Joe and Tulensru were on duty and properly performing their duties when they were stopped, accosted and set upon by plaintiff thus interfering with the officers in the lawful pursuit of their duties, there was prob7able cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstructing justice. Since there was probable cause for his arrest, all claims by plaintiff based. upon a false arrest must fail. .

Since the plaintiff accosted officer Joe and Officer Tulensru used only that force reasonably necessary to subdue the struggling'ahd kicking plaintiff, the touching of the plaintiff in effecting h`rs arrest was permissible and did not constitute battery and all related claims are therefore without merit.

The above comments of the Court with respect-to plaintiff's claims based upon a false arrest theory are equally applicable to his claims for recovery under a false imprisonment theory. They are without merit.

reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances; it is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under similar circumstances or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence whould have done under similar circumstances. "Koike v Pohnpei Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986).

Here, the Court has found that the officers actions' were appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances and therefore the plaintiff has failed to establish negligence on the part of any of the defendants. Therefore, this claim must fail.

Since this Court has found that there was reasonable cause to arrest the plaintiff and that the officers' actions in subduing and arresting the plaintiff were reasonable under the circumstances, it does not appear that there was any violation of the plaintiff's due process rights under, either the Koisrae State Charter of the FSM Constitution. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to prevail on this claim.

In plaintiff's complaint, he alleges that the two officers "...deprived, injured, oppressed, and intimidated plaintiff in the free exercise and enjoyment of his right to due process of law ...." Since this Court has found that the actions, of the

.; officers..'were proper under the circumstances and has further found that the plaintiff cannot recover on his claims with respect to alleged violations of due process rights, this Court

While it is true that OfflceLS ,1ue ana fulensru were employed by the State of Kosrae and were acing within the scope of their employment at the time of the altercation in question, since the individual officers behavior has been found to be proper, there is no improper action to be implied to the employer under the theory of respondeat superior. This claim too must fail.

Since this Court has found that the officers properly carried out their duties and acted in a proper manner, here is no negligent act to impute to the State of Kosrae. This claim is

Without addressing the issue of whether employees of the State, acting within the scope of their employment, panabe liable for punitive damages; generally, to prove a claim for punitive damages, a party must assert that the actions of which it complaints were unlawful, wilfull, or malicious; there must be conduct deliberately aimed at causing harm. 22 Am Jur. 2d Damages, §644. Here, given the lawful arrest of the plaintiff and absent evidence that any of plaintiff's alleged injuries were deliberately caused by the officers, plaintiff's claim for punitive damages must fail.

In conclusion, I find that the defendants in this matter behaved properly toward the plamtWf and the defendants are not liable to the plaintiff in this action.


	KOSRAE STATE COURT FEDERATED STATES OF MTCRONESIA Cite as Seymour v. Joe,Tulensru, Kosrae, Kosrae St.(1988) [Kos.Ct pge 1] ALOKOA SEYMOUR, Plaintiff Vs ALOKOA JOE, JOHN TULENSRU and, STATE OF KOSRAE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-84 OPINION BEFORE THE HONORABLE HARRY H.: SKIRLING CHIEF JUSTICE TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1988 DECIDED: NOVEMBER 22, 1988 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Delson Ehmes Directing Attorney "Micronesian Legal Serv. Corp. Kosrae State, FSM 96944 FOR THE DEFENDANT: Richard Kaminski Assistant Attorney General Tofol, Kosrae State 96944 [Kos.Ct pge 2] This case was tried on November 22, 1988. Delson Ehmes of Micronesian Legal Services Corporation represented the plaintiff, Alokoa Seymour, Richard Kaminski, Assistant Attorney General represented the State of Kosrae, Alokoa Joe and John Tulensru (a/k/a John Tolennoa). FINDINGS OF FACT During the trial of this case, conflicting evidence was presented to the Court. After hearing the witnesses, weighing the evidences, and after due deliberation, this Court makes the following findings of fact. (1) The plaintiff was working for a construction company in Tafunsak; Kosrae on September 7, 1983. (2) At about 5 p.m. on September 7, 1983, Kosrae Police Officers Alokoa Joe arid John Tulensru,.while on duty, were driving past the plaint'iff's place of employment on their way to patrol at the airport. (3) When the officers were driving past the plaintiff, plaintiff shouted at the officers. The officers stopped their vehicle and officer Joe got out of-the vehicle in response to the plaintiff's calls. (4) Plaintiff then demanded thatfficer Joe pay for two bags of cement. Officer Joe requested that the plaintiff wait until officer Joe was off-duty to discuss the matter. At i this point the plaintiff loudly accused Officer Joe of being a liar, using the Kosraean; word "fulangunsrul". [Kos.Ct pge 3] (5) At this point, while there is some dispute as to which party was the first to touch the other, the weight of the evidence suggests that plaintiff accosted Officer Joe, a staff le took place and officer Tulensru assisted officerJoe in subduing the struggling plaintiff, handcuffing him, placing him under arrest for obstructing justice, putting him in the rear of the officers' pickup truck, and transporting him to the Kosrae jail. (6) Officers Joe and Tulensru used only such force as was necessary to safely subdue, arrest and transport the plaintiff to jail. (7) The Officers actions were lawful, within the scope of their employment and there was probable cause for the plaintiff's arrest. (8) All damages and injuries occurring to plaintiff were caused either directly or indirectly by plaintiff's own actions. Plaintiff Seymour has sought recovery from Kosrae State and the two .Police officers under ten separate claims for relief, to wit: (1) False Arrest (2) Battery (3) False Imprisonment (4) Negligence (5) Due Process of Law-- Kosrae State Charter (6) Due Process of Law--FSM Constitution [Kos.Ct pge 4] (7) 11 FSM Section 701 ( 8) Resporidea t Superior (9) Negligence of State of Kosrae (10) Punitive Damages 1. FALSE ARREST Since the facts show that officers Joe and Tulensru were on duty and properly performing their duties when they were stopped, accosted and set upon by plaintiff thus interfering with the officers in the lawful pursuit of their duties, there was prob7able cause to arrest the plaintiff for obstructing justice. Since there was probable cause for his arrest, all claims by plaintiff based. upon a false arrest must fail. . 2. BATTERY . Since the plaintiff accosted officer Joe and Officer Tulensru used only that force reasonably necessary to subdue the struggling'ahd kicking plaintiff, the touching of the plaintiff in effecting h`rs arrest was permissible and did not constitute battery and all related claims are therefore without merit. 3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT The above comments of the Court with respect-to plaintiff's claims based upon a false arrest theory are equally applicable to his claims for recovery under a false imprisonment theory. They are without merit. 4. NEGLIGENCE Negligence has been defined as follows: "Negligence is the failure to use such care as a [Kos.Ct pge 5] reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances; it is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under similar circumstances or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence whould have done under similar circumstances. "Koike v Pohnpei Rock Products, Inc., 3 FSM Intrm. 57 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1986). Here, the Court has found that the officers actions' were appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances and therefore the plaintiff has failed to establish negligence on the part of any of the defendants. Therefore, this claim must fail. 5 & 6. DUE PROCESS (KOSRAE & FSM) Since this Court has found that there was reasonable cause to arrest the plaintiff and that the officers' actions in subduing and arresting the plaintiff were reasonable under the circumstances, it does not appear that there was any violation of the plaintiff's due process rights under, either the Koisrae State Charter of the FSM Constitution. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to prevail on this claim. 7. 11 FSM 701 . In plaintiff's complaint, he alleges that the two officers "...deprived, injured, oppressed, and intimidated plaintiff in the free exercise and enjoyment of his right to due process of law ...." Since this Court has found that the actions, of the .; officers..'were proper under the circumstances and has further found that the plaintiff cannot recover on his claims with respect to alleged violations of due process rights, this Court [Kos.Ct pge 6] likewise finds that plaintiff's claim for relief based upon 11 FSM 711 is without merit. 8. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR While it is true that OfflceLS ,1ue ana fulensru were employed by the State of Kosrae and were acing within the scope of their employment at the time of the altercation in question, since the individual officers behavior has been found to be proper, there is no improper action to be implied to the employer under the theory of respondeat superior. This claim too must fail. 9. NEGLIGENCY OF STATE OF KOSRAE . Since this Court has found that the officers properly carried out their duties and acted in a proper manner, here is no negligent act to impute to the State of Kosrae. This claim is without merit. 10. PUNITIVE DAMAGES Without addressing the issue of whether employees of the State, acting within the scope of their employment, panabe liable for punitive damages; generally, to prove a claim for punitive damages, a party must assert that the actions of which it complaints were unlawful, wilfull, or malicious; there must be conduct deliberately aimed at causing harm. 22 Am Jur. 2d Damages, §644. Here, given the lawful arrest of the plaintiff and absent evidence that any of plaintiff's alleged injuries were deliberately caused by the officers, plaintiff's claim for punitive damages must fail. [Kos.Ct pge 7] CONCLUSION In conclusion, I find that the defendants in this matter behaved properly toward the plamtWf and the defendants are not liable to the plaintiff in this action. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED on the 22nd day of November, 1988. /s/ Harry H. Skilling Chief Justice Entered this 23 day of March , 1989. /s/ Clerk of Court, Kosrae State