Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co.9/15/1997
consideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 847 P.2d 263 (1993). Where the evidentiary ruling at issue concerns admissibility based upon relevance, under [ Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE)] Rules 401 and 402, the proper standard of appellate review is the right/wrong standard. See State v. Toro, 77 Haw. 340, 347, 884 P.2d 403, 410 (Haw. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 77 Haw. 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994).
State v. Kupihea, 80 Haw. 307, 314, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129, (1996) (some brackets in original and some added). "Evidentiary decisions based on HRE Rule 403, which require a 'judgment call' on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Walsh v. Chan, 80 Haw. 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201, (1995) (citing Sato v. Tawata, 79 Haw. 14, 19, 897 P.2d 941, 946 (1995)). . . . "'The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.'" State v. Ganal, 81 Haw. 358, 373, 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Haw. 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994)).
Arceo, 84 Haw. at 11, 928 P.2d at 853.
E. Qualifications And Testimony Of Expert Witnesses
Quoting Larsen v. State Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 64 Haw. 302, 304, 640 P.2d 286, 288 (1982), we noted in State v. Toyomura 80 Haw. 8, 26 n.19, 904 P.2d 893, 911 n.19 (1995), that
it is not necessary that the expert witness have the highest possible qualifications to testify about a particular matter,... but the expert witness must have such skill, knowledge, or experience in the field in question as to make it appear that his opinion or inference-drawing would probably aid the trier of fact in arriving at the truth. . . . Once the basic requisite qualifications are established, the extent of an expert's knowledge of the subject matter goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony.
State v. Wallace, 80 Haw. 382, 419 n.37, 910 P.2d 695, 732 n.37 (1996) (brackets and ellipsis points in original) (emphases omitted). "'Whether expert testimony should be admitted at trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.'" Id. at 406, 910 P.2d at 719 (quoting State v. Maelega, 80 Haw. 172, 180, 907 P.2d 758, 766 (1995)); State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507, 532-34, 928 P.2d 1, 26-28 (1996). "Nevertheless, to be admissible, 'expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable.'" Wallace, 80 Haw. at 407, 910 P.2d at 720 (quoting Maelega, 80 Haw. at 181, 907 P.2d at 767); see also Samonte, 83 Haw. at 533, 928 P.2d at 27.
III. Discussion
A. Duty To Retrofit
We begin our analysis with the plaintiffs' contention that Clark was subject to a duty to retrofit the Series 510 straddle carrier with equipment that would have rendered it safer. In this connection, the plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred in gran
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
|