Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co.9/15/1997
ely reviewable for its correctness." State v. Soto, 84 Haw. 229, 236, 933 P.2d 66, 73 (1997) (citations omitted). See also In re Jane Doe, Born on May 22, 1976, 84 Haw. 41, 46, 928 P.2d 883, 888 (1996); Hirono v. Peabody, 81 Haw. 230, 232, 915 P.2d 704, 706 (1996); Zemis v. SCI Contractors, Inc./E.E. Black, Inc., 80 Haw. 442, 445, 911 P.2d 77, 80 (1996).
B. Directed Verdict
When we review the granting of a directed verdict, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Lussier v. Mau-Van Dev., Inc., 4 Haw. App. 359, 372, 667 P.2d 804, 815 (1983).
directed verdict may be granted only when after disregarding conflicting evidence, giving to the [non-moving party's] evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in [the non-moving party's] favor, it can be said that there is no evidence to support a jury verdict in his [or her] favor.
Wakabayashi v. Hertz Rental Corp., 66 Haw. 265, 271, 660 P.2d 1309, 1313 (1983) (quoting Stewart v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 52 Haw. 71, 77, 470 P.2d 240, 244 (1970) (citations omitted)).
Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Haw. 40, 49-50, 890 P.2d 277, 286-87, reconsideration denied, 78 Haw. 421, 895 P.2d 172 (1995) (brackets in original). See also Takayama v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 82 Haw. 486, 495, 923 P.2d 903, 912 (1996); Carr v. Strode, 79 Haw. 475, 486, 904 P.2d 489, 500 (1995).
C. Jury Instructions
When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.
Erroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial.
State v. Arceo, 84 Haw. 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). See also Craft v. Peebles, 78 Haw. 287, 302, 893 P.2d 138, 153 (1995); Montalvo v. Lapez, 77 Haw. 282, 286, 884 P.2d 345, 349 ("'Jury instructions . . . must be considered as a whole. Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.'" (Quoting State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 180, 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981))), reconsideration denied, 77 Haw. 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994) (ellipsis points in original).
D. Evidentiary Rulings
Different standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard.
Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 319, 844 P.2d 670, 676, re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|