 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stender v. Vincent1/31/2000
As amended March 18, 2000.
TERRI-LYNN STENDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND TO STEPHEN I. ADAMS-STENDER AND SHERYL-LYNN A. ADAMS STENDER, RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
V.
CHARLES K. VINCENT, JR.; STATE OF HAWAI`I; AND CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER-DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10; AND ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, DEFENDANTS
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CIV. NO. 93-0391-01)
On the briefs: Bertram Goldstein, Richard Turbin, and Laura Stone-Jeraj for respondent-plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees Terri-Lynn Stender, Individually and as Next of Friend to Stephen I Adams- Stender and Sheryl-Lynn A. Adams-Stender; Jerold T. Matayoshi, Robert Sadaoka, and Kathleen Clark for petitioner-defendant appellee/cross-appellant Ford Motor Company
Moon, C.J., Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, And Ramil, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nakayama, J.
OPINION
On July 19, 1999, petitioner-defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Ford Motor Co. (Ford) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the summary disposition order filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) on June 17, 1999. In the order, the ICA vacated the circuit court's judgment against Terri-Lynn Stender (Stender), individually and as next friend of her children, Steven and Sheryl-Lynn Adams Stender (collectively, plaintiffs), in a case involving, inter alia, product liability and negligence claims against Ford for defective design. This court granted certiorari to review Ford's petition. Upon review of the parties' arguments before this court and the record presented, we hold that the ICA erred in vacating the circuit court's judgment based on an adverse inference jury instruction given by the trial court as a spoliation sanction against plaintiffs. Nevertheless, insofar as we agree with the ICA that the circuit court erred by partially denying plaintiffs' motion to exclude Ford's supplemental discovery responses, and because we further believe that this error provides an independent and sufficient basis for a new trial, we uphold the ICA's decision to vacate the circuit court's judgment, albeit on different grounds. In all other respects, we affirm the ICA's order.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Accident and Preliminary Events
In the early morning hours of March 22, 1992, Stender and Darrell Perysian were parked in a 1984 Ford Tempo (Tempo) owned by Eugenia Stender (Eugenia), Stender's mother, at the Makapu`u Lighthouse lookout on the island of O`ahu in the City and County of Honolulu. Stender sat in the driver's seat and Perysian sat in the passenger's seat.
Defendant-appellee Charles Vincent, Jr. (Vincent) was traveling northbound on Kalaniana`ole Highway at speeds approximated at over 70 miles an hour. In an attempt to pass slower moving vehicles, Vincent crossed the center line and accelerated. While still passing the vehicles, Vincent saw headlights and attempted to avoid a head-on collision. Vincent lost control of his vehicle and veered into the lookout, striking the left front area of the Tempo. The collision fractured the Tempo's front axle and sent the vehicle into a 180-degree spin. Stender was rendered quadriplegic.
The position of Stender's seat back at the time of the accident is an issue of contention. On March 25, 1992, Perysian made unsworn aud
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|