[¶19] While we have not defined harmless error in the civil context, we have often applied the rule. One application was in Johnson v. Buskohl Construction, Inc. , 2015 ND 268, ¶ 17, 871 N.W.2d 459, where defendant Buskohl claimed it was prejudiced when the district court erred by admitting hearsay evidence to support Johnson's damage claim. We agreed the court erroneously admitted the evidence, and proceeded to examine whether the error was harmless.
His answers about statements in a third party's appraisals were hearsay, and no exception applies. See Johnson v. Buskohl Constr. Inc., 2015 ND 268, ¶¶ 5-6, 17-27, 871 N.W.2d 459 (building company's out-of-court statement estimating the cost to fix a deck was hearsay and no exception applied). The district court therefore abused its discretion overruling the objections to Reginald Froemke's testimony about the appraisal valuations.
An irregularity means "non-conformance to a rule or a law, or failure to follow the requirement of the law." Johnson v. Buskohl Const. Inc. , 2015 ND 268, ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 459 (quoting Felix v. Lehman , 74 N.D. 125, 20 N.W.2d 82, 84 (1945) ). [¶17] Section 30.1-29-09, N.D.C.C., gives a court permissive authority to enact protective measures for the property and affairs of a minor if a basis for one exists under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-29-01.
An irregularity means "non-conformance to a rule or a law, or failure to follow the requirement of the law." Johnson v. Buskohl Const. Inc., 2015 ND 268, ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 459 (quoting Felix v. Lehman, 74 N.D. 125, 20 N.W.2d 82, 84 (1945)). [¶17] Section 30.1-29-09, N.D.C.C., gives a court permissive authority to enact protective measures for the property and affairs of a minor if a basis for one exists under N.D.C.C. § 30.1-29-01.
A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably, when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or when it misapplies the law. Johnson v. Buskohl Constr., Inc. , 2015 ND 268, ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 459. [¶23] Although the jury instructions in this case did not explicitly allocate the burden of proof for the mitigation, our decision in Selland and Eighth Circuit authority require the employer to show an employee failed to mitigate damages by showing there were substantially equivalent jobs available in the geographic area and the employee did not use reasonable efforts in seeking employment.
Moszer , at ¶ 10. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. Johnson v. Buskohl Constr. Inc. , 2015 ND 268, ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 459. [¶ 12] A jury's special verdict will be reversed on appeal only if it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence.
State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95, ¶ 26, 846 N.W.2d 314. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Johnson v. Buskohl Constr., Inc., 2015 ND 268, ¶ 18, 871 N.W.2d 459.[¶ 6] The State argues Deputy Olson should be allowed to testify at trial about Engelhorn's HGN test results under this Court's decision in City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700 (N.D.1994).