Opinion ID: 2622544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Findings Adequately Addressed Comparative Fault.

Text: The Beauxs next argue that the trial court erred in failing to make fact findings regarding the Jacobs' comparative fault. The Beauxs contend that the trial court should have apportioned fault to the Jacobs under the principle of comparative negligence for: (1) their failure to read and think about the clearly disclosed need to maintain and use both sump pumps; (2) their unexplained failure to connect the disclosure statement to their direct knowledge of the second pump; (3) their failure to mention the second pump and pool room sump to the engineers; (4) their unexplained failure to use the second pump sooner[; and (5) their failure] to call the Beauxs for advice. [4] The superior court's fact findings implicitly addressed each of the Beauxs' allegations of comparative fault. [5] The superior court found that the Beauxs' disclosure that sump pumps must be maintained and used was ambiguous, and was subject to a reasonable interpretation that the term sump pumps referred only to the permanent sump in the mechanical room. The superior court also found that the Beauxs did not fully inform the Jacobs of the inadequacy of the permanent sump in the boiler room to keep the water table at a safe level. Finally, the superior court found that the Beauxs did not fully inform the Jacobs of the need to use the deep sump to prevent water infiltration into the basement. These findings, read together, suggest that the superior court found that the Jacobs reasonably interpreted the disclosure statement, and necessarily imply that the superior court found that the Jacobs read and [thought] about the disclosures. The findings are also inconsistent with finding that the Jacobs negligently failed to connect the disclosure statement to their direct knowledge of the second pump. And the finding that the Jacobs were not informed of the need to use the deep sump to prevent water infiltration in the basement precludes a finding that they were negligent in failing to mention the deep sump to the engineers, or in failing to use the deep sump sooner. Because the superior court implicitly addressed each of the Beauxs' allegations of comparative fault, and because its findings were not clearly erroneous, [6] we need not remand for further fact findings.