Olga Edstrom v. Mount Saint Mary's Condominium Association

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0003, Olga Edstrom v. Mount Saint Mary's
Condominium Association, the court on June 10, 2016, issued
the following order:

We treat the handwritten document that the plaintiff submitted at the
same time as her reply brief as a supplement to it. Having considered the briefs,
the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, Olga Edstrom, appeals a jury verdict in the Superior Court
(McNamara, J.) in favor of the defendant, Mount Saint Mary’s Condominium
Association, in a negligence action arising from a fall. We construe the plaintiff’s
arguments to be that the trial court erred by: (1) not allowing her to introduce
photographs of other stairways belonging to the defendant on which she did not
fall, including other portions of the stairway on which she alleges she fell; (2) not
allowing her to “provide expert testimony as to what medical care was reasonably
required and whether or not she suffers any permanent disability”; (3) not
allowing her to introduce evidence relating to other conflicts between her and the
defendant; and (4) not setting aside the jury’s verdict as against the weight of the
evidence.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). It is the appealing party’s burden on appeal to provide a record that
is sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she raised
those issues in the trial court. Id.; see Sup. Ct. R. 13(3), 15(3) (if appealing party
intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to the evidence, the
party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to such ruling). Absent a
transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached
by the trial court, Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, and review its order for errors of law
only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997). These rules are not
relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham &
Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the plaintiff has not provided a transcript of the trial
management conference, at which the defendant represents the evidentiary
motions were argued, or of the trial. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence
was offered or what arguments were raised. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.
Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s
determinations. Id. We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only, see
Atwood, 142 N.H. at 397, and find none.

In light of this conclusion, the plaintiff’s May 31, 2016 motion requesting
that we reach a decision regarding damages is moot.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2