Directing Attorneys Micronesia Legal services Enterprise P

Directing Attorneys Micronesia Legal services Enterprise P

Proof – Burden away from Evidence

Preponderance of the evidence is not evidence to a “moral certainty” or “clear and convincing evidence.” As a standard of proof, “preponderance of the evidence” means that the facts asserted by the plaintiff are more probably true than false. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 187 (Pon. 2017).

Evidence – Weight from Facts

If the plaintiff’s evidence is more convincing than that which defendant offers in opposition, then the plaintiff has met its burden of showing that the facts for which it contends are more probably true than false. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff’s evidence is less convincing than that offered in opposition, then the defendant’s version of events is the more likely, and the plaintiff fails to meet its burden of proof. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 187 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Carelessness

Because tort law is primarily state law, a negligence action will be governed by the substantive state law and the FSM Supreme Court’s duty is to try to apply the law the same way the highest state court would. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 187 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Neglect

For purposes of Pohnpei law, “negligence” is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 187 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Obligations regarding Care and attention

Although a party has a duty not to destroy another’s property, that duty is not breached when the property’s removal was authorized. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 187 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Duty away from Worry; Torts – Neglect

When a reasonable person, in considering the totality of the circumstances, would find that the defendant did not breach its duty of care, the plaintiff’s claim for negligence is not substantiated. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 188 (Pon. 2017).

Evidence – Burden out-of Research

Inside the a municipal situation, a beneficial plaintiff must establish brand new allegations by good preponderance out of evidence in order to prevail. Preponderance of the evidence isn’t facts in order to a moral confidence or clear and convincing

evidence. As a standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence means that the facts asserted by the plaintiff are more probably true than false. But, if the plaintiff’s evidence is less convincing than that offered in opposition, then the defendant’s version of events is the more likely, and the plaintiff fails to meet its burden of proof. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 188 n.7 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Conversion

The elements of a conversion cause of action are: 1) the plaintiffs’ ownership and right to possession of the personal property in question; 2) the defendant’s unauthorized or wrongful act of dominion over the property that is hostile or inconsistent with the owner’s right; and 3) damages resulting from such action. Pelep v Rhode Island title loans. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 189 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Transformation

An owner consented to the taking of his property by instructing the defendant to remove the vehicle, and the consent was direct because the owner requested that the defendant take the vehicle from his home, and indirect through the person at his home who directed the defendant to take the vehicle. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 189 (Pon. 2017).

Torts – Conversion

A defendant may successfully defend a conversion action by proving that the plaintiff consented to the defendant’s taking, or that the defendant had rights in the property superior to the plaintiff’s, or that the plaintiff has waived its cause of action, or that the plaintiff is estopped from asserting any right to the property. Pelep v. Mai Xiong Inc., 21 FSM R. 182, 189 (Pon. 2017).