Amantiad v. Odum5/20/1999
ourt's first look at Hawaii's then new workers' compensation statute in 1916, analyses in these kinds of cases have been grounded on the humanitarian purposes premise. See, e.g., Lawhead v. United Air Lines, 59 Haw. 551, 559-60, 584 P.2d 119, 124-25 (1978); DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296, 303-04, 555 P.2d 855, 860 (1976); Ichijiro Ikoma v. Oahu Sugar Co., 23 Haw. 291, 295-96 (1916). "Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the rule of liberal construction in workers' compensation cases has boundaries. In a caveat on this point, the supreme court explained that "` he rule of liberal construction cannot be strained to the point of extending it to employments [or employment benefits] not within its scope or intent.'" Locations, Inc., 79 Hawaii at 211, 900 P.2d at 787 (quoting Florida Indus. Comm'n v. Schoenberg, 117 So.2d 538, 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)).
Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawaii 390, 397, 935 P.2d 105, 112 (App. 1997) (footnote omitted). Finally, this court has also stated "that `statutes abrogating common law rights must be strictly construed[.]'" Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 83 Hawaii 457, 463, 927 P.2d 858, 864 (1996) (citing Fonseca v. Pacific Constr., 54 Haw. 578, 585, 513 P.2d 156, 160 (1973); Burns Int'l Sec. Services v. Department of Transp., 66 Haw. 607, 611, 671 P.2d 446, 449 (1983) (explaining that " here it does not appear there was a legislative purpose in superseding the common law, the common law will be followed").
2. Compromise and Settlement
We particularly note our longstanding support of compromise and settlement. As a general rule, a properly executed settlement precludes future litigation for its parties. See AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. v. Bateman, 82 Hawaii 453, 458-59, 923 P.2d 395, 400-01, amended in part, 83 Hawaii 203, 925 P.2d 373 (1996). Indeed, a settlement agreement
"is an agreement to terminate, by means of mutual concessions, a claim which is disputed in good faith or unliquidated. It is an amicable method of settling or resolving bona fide differences or uncertainties and is designed to prevent or put an end to litigation." 15A Am.Jur.2d Compromise and Settlement ยง 1 (1976).
We acknowledge the well-settled rule that the law favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation. Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 82-83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981). Such alternative to court litigation not only brings finality to the uncertainties of the parties, but is consistent with this court's policy to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes. In turn, it is advantageous to judicial administration and thus to government and its citizens as a whole. We agree with the policy and law of settlements which the Supreme Court of Arkansas succinctly sets forth in Ragland v. Davis, 301 Ark. 102, 106-107, 782 S.W.2d 560, 562 (1990) (citation omitted, emphasis added):
"Courts should, and do, so far as they can do so legally and properly, support agreements which have for their object the amicable settlement of doubtful rights by parties; the consideration for such agreements is not only valuable, but highly meritorious. Because they promote peace, voluntary settlements . . . must stand and be enforced if intended by the parties to be final, notwithstanding the settlement made might not be that which the court would have decreed if the controversy had been brought before it for decision. Such agreements are binding without regard to which party gets the best of the bargain or whether all the gain is in fact on one side and all the sacrifice on the other. ". . . . "A compromise or settlement agreement disposes of all issues the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|