 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ozaki v. Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay5/4/1998
The plaintiffs-appellants-respondents' motion, filed on April 24, 1998, for reconsideration, or, in the alternative, for clarification of the opinion of the court in the above-captioned matter, filed on April 14, 1998, is hereby granted in part. The opinion of the court, filed on April 14, 1998, is clarified by amendment as follows (boldfaced language is added):
1. Pages 11 and 12 (last paragraph of section III) :
HRS § 663-31 provides in relevant part that "if the [proportion of negligence attributable to the person, for whose injury , damage, or death recovery is sought,] is greater than the negligence of the person or . . . the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, the court will enter judgment for the defendant." Thus, by its plain language, the statute requires that judgment be entered in favor of Discovery Bay, inasmuch as the jury's special verdict apportioned greater fault to Dennis than to Discovery Bay. There is no discernible reason why Discovery Bay should lose the protection of HRS § 663-31 merely because its codefendant committed an intentional tort. The public policy underlying the decision to permit recovery in strict product liability actions subject only to reduction to the extent of the purely comparative degree of a plaintiff's contributory negligence the "desire to create economic incentives for safer products," see Armstrong[ v. Cione], 69 Haw. at 182, 738 P.2d at 83 --, as reflected in Hao, Armstrong, and Kaneko, simply has no bearing on the facts of this case. Thus, insofar as HRS § 663-31 governs the plaintiffs' negligence claim against Discovery Bay, the construct of pure comparative negligence is inapplicable thereto.
2. Page 12, "CONCLUSION" (section IV) :
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing Discussion, inasmuch as the jury found Discovery Bay's negligence to be less than that of Dennis, the circuit court correctly granted Discovery Bay's motion for final judgment pursuant to the special verdict. We therefore reverse the ICA's opinion in this respect and affirm the circuit court's judgment and consequent order. In all other respects not inconsistent with this opinion, the ICA's decision is affirmed.
The plaintiffs-appellants-respondents' motion is denied in all other respects.
The clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the foregoing changes into the original opinion.
Page 1 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|