Laclair v. Byrd, (2012)

• Court: Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 09 January 2012
• Docket Number: SKO-Ci-06/10-428
• Citation: Laclair v. Byrd (Skokomish Tribal Ct. of App. 2012)
• Parties: LAMETTA AND PATRICK LACLAIR, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES v. JAMES AND LAURIE BYRD, DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

LAMETTA AND PATRICK LACLAIR, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES v. JAMES AND LAURIE BYRD, DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

No. SKO-Ci-06/10-428

Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals Skokomish Indian Reservation Skokomish, Washington

January 9, 2012

LaMetta LaClair, pro se; James Byrd and Laurie Byrd, pro se

Before: Eric Nielsen, Chief Judge; Lisa L. Atkinson, Judge Richard A. Woodrow, Judge

OPINION

This matter comes before the Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to an appeal from a trial court decision finding Defendants negligent and awarding Plaintiffs $52,408.00 in damages.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Skokomish Tribal Code (STC) 3.01.063, the standard of review for an appeal from a trial court decision is as follows:

(1) for questions of fact, the standard shall be the 'clearly-erroneous' standard;

(2) for questions of law, the standard shall be 'de novo' to determine whether a mistake of law was made by the trial court;

(3) for questions of fact for which it is asserted the trial court made a decision which is grossly unsound, unreasonable illegal or unsupported by the evidence, the standard shall be 'abuse of discretion'.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a fire in the Appellants' smokehouse ignited bags of newspapers that allowed the fire to spread to Plaintiffs property destroying their home, personal possessions and fishing boats and gear. Plaintiff's alleged the destruction of their fishing boats and gear damaged their ability to earn a living from fishing.

The trial was bifurcated. A trial on liability was held on September 30, 2010. The trial court found Defendants negligent in failing to use reasonable care to keep the smoke house fire from spreading to Plaintiff's property. On October 21, 2010, the trial court entered detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

A trial on the alleged damages Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Appellants' negligence was held on June 23, 2011. Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the court found Plaintiffs were entitled to economic damages of $44,408.00 and non-economic damages of $8,000.00. The trial court filed detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 15, 2011.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2011. The notice of appeal asserts; "Defendant was not negligent and did use reasonable care to keep smokehouse fire from spreading"àsmokehouse fire was out as defendant stood in it and swept it out. Fireworks were a probable cause of the fireàmy smokehouse did not cause the fire and there was no negligence". In light of certain ministerial errors committed by the court clerk and pursuant to a liberal interpretation of the Skokomish Appellate Rules, this Court accepted the notice of appeal as timely filed. Both parties filed briefs and oral argument was heard on December 9, 2011. Appellants failed to appear for oral argument.

ANALYSIS

The evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact. Appellants asserted at trial and on appeal something or someone else caused the fire, either fireworks or people smoking outside near the smokehouse, and therefore they were not negligent. Plaintiffs presented testimony from Skokomish Public Safety Officer Matt Brown that Appellants admitted the fire appeared to have started in the smokehouse. Plaintiffs' evidence also includes the Mason County Fire Marshall's report that the fire escaped from Appellants'' smokehouse, ignited three bags of combustible newspapers next to the smokehouse and spread to Plaintiffs' property. The only evidence presented by Appellants in support of the theory the fire was caused by fireworks was the testimony of Appellant James Byrd. ^[1]

Byrd also testified once he started the fire at between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., the only time he checked on it was when he was awoken at 3:00 a.m. and he only checked to see if there was any smoke coming from the smoke house. By 6:30 a.m. the fire had spread to plaintiffs' property.

The trial court weighed the evidence and found Plaintiff's evidence more credible. The trial court's factual...