Opinion ID: 523622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: adequacy of ruling

Text: 22 Appellant argues that at trial it presented evidence of comparative negligence on Mr. Barnett's part. Appellant contends that the district court's failure to expressly reject any comparative negligence by the appellee is inadequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). In Vance v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc. 789 F.2d 790, 792 (9th Cir.1986) this Court examined the standard for assessing a district court's findings and conclusions. We previously stated: 23 In bench trials, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) requires a court to find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. One purpose behind Rule 52(a) is to aid the appellate court's understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Can-Car, Inc., 645 F.2d 17, 18 (9th Cir.1980). This purpose is achieved if the district court's findings are sufficient to indicate the factual basis for its ultimate conclusions. Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District, 319 U.S. 415, 422, 63 S.Ct. 1141, 1145, 87 L.Ed. 1485 (1943); Fluor Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co., 405 F.2d 823, 828 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1014, 89 S.Ct. 1632, 23 L.Ed.2d 40 (1969). Failure to comply with Rule 52(a) does not require reversal unless a full understanding of the question is not possible without the aid of separate findings. Alpha Distributing Co. v. Jack Daniel Distillery, 454 F.2d 442, 453 (9th Cir.1972). We will affirm the district court if the findings are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for the decision, or if there can be no genuine dispute about omitted findings. Magna Weld Sales Co. v. Magna Alloys & Research Party, 545 F.2d 668, 671 (9th Cir.1976). 24 This standard is applicable to the instant dispute. The findings of fact show that the district court found that the defendant-appellant was negligent and that Mr. Barnett's injuries resulted from this negligence. 25 There is a colloquy in the record showing that the trial court was aware of the issue of comparative negligence. The failure of the district court to explicitly find no comparative negligence by plaintiff-appellee is not fatal to its decision. 26 A full understanding of the issues of negligence and comparative negligence may be had without separate, specific findings that a plaintiff was not comparatively negligent. The trial court's failure to award any offset in the judgment shows that it rejected defendant-appellant's claim for comparative negligence. 27 The district court's findings of negligence, causation, and damage are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to provide a basis for awarding the entire judgment, with no diminution for comparative negligence, to the plaintiff-appellee. 28 A remand is unnecessary. The district court's findings and conclusions of law are adequate for appellate review and decision. 29