 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kamaunu v. Kaaea11/7/2002
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, AND ACOBA, JJ.
Petitioner-plaintiff-appellee Benjamin Kamaunu (Plaintiff) timely applied for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in Kamaunu v. Kaaea, No. 22852 (App. Mar. 28, 2002), a personal injury action wherein the ICA remanded the case to the Second Circuit Court for a new trial. The ICA concluded that the trial court, inter alia, abused its discretion when it sanctioned respondent-defendant-appellant Garth Kaaea (Defendant) for violating Rule 12.1 of the Rules of the Circuit Court (RCCH) (1984) by entering an order of default on the issue of liability (default liability).
In his application for writ of certiorari, Plaintiff contends that the ICA's decision: (1) conflicts with this court's precedent in Canalez v. Bob's Appliance Service Center, Inc., 89 Haw. 292, 972 P.2d 295 (1999), and creates different standards for the application of RCCH Rule 12.1 to defendants and plaintiffs; (2) erroneously concludes that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed default liability against Defendant; and (3) erroneously concludes that the trial court lost jurisdiction to hear and determine Plaintiff's post-trial motions when Defendant filed his notice of appeal. We disagree.
Plaintiff also contends that the ICA erred when it: (1) determined that Defendant had complete authority to settle the case; and (2) admonished trial courts to cease immediately the practice of ascertaining what occurred during the course of mandatory Court Annexed Arbitration Program (CAAP) proceedings, including the specifics of the arbitrator's award. Although we ultimately affirm the result reached in the ICA's decision, we believe these latter two contentions made by Plaintiff require further review.
I. BACKGROUND
The following recitation by the ICA succinctly states the undisputed facts regarding the accident that gave rise to the present case:
At about 10 o'clock on the evening of June 20, 1997, Plaintiff walked to the middle of Kamehameha Avenue in Kahului, Maui, leaned over to pick up a quarter he thought he had seen, and was struck by a motor vehicle operated by Defendant. Plaintiff does not recall checking for cars prior to venturing onto the road, and he admits that he was intoxicated and wearing dark clothing at the time.
Although Defendant saw Plaintiff immediately prior to the impact, Defendant admits that he did not sound the horn of his vehicle. Instead, he swerved the vehicle to the left to avoid hitting Plaintiff and did not step on the brakes until after the impact. Although it is unclear whether there were any street lights in the vicinity, it is undisputed that the headlights on Defendant's vehicle were operational at the time. Kamaunu, slip op. at 5.
The procedural history of this case is set forth in the ICA's decision and will not be repeated here. See Kamaunu, slip op. at 5-15.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In granting a writ of certiorari, this court reviews decisions for (1) grave errors of law or of fact, or (2) obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the ICA with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its own decision and the magnitude of such errors or inconsistencies dictating the need for further appeal. See Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) ยง 602-59 (1993).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Defendant's Settlement Authority
Pursuant to the express language of RCCH Rule 12.1(a)(6), sanctions may be imposed if: (1) a party or his or her attorney fails to appear at a scheduled settlement conference; (2) a party or his or her attorney neglects to discuss
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|