 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richardson v. Sport Shinko8/29/1994
le" attorneys' fees against party who appeals and fails to improve arbitration award); Firelock, Inc. v. District Court, 776 P.2d 1090, 1097 (Colo. 1989) ("provision for the payment of costs of arbitration if the party does not increase its position by 10% is not an unreasonable burden on the availability of a jury trial"). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that no "onerous" restriction on the right to jury trial was presented by a compulsory arbitration statute that discouraged frivolous appeals "by providing for the imposition of all costs of both arbitration and trial, which includes the expenses of expert witnesses on the losing party if the trial court finds that the basis for the appeal was capricious, frivolous and unreasonable." Parker v. Children's Hosp. of Philadelphia, 483 Pa. 106, 120, 394 A.2d 932, 939 (1978).
However, although the amount of sanctions authorized by HAR 26 is not per se unconstitutional, "the problem is one of degree rather than kind." Christie-Labbert, 39 Wash. App. at 307, 693 P.2d at 167. For example, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted with regard to a court rule requiring the payment of arbitrators' fees as a condition to post-arbitration jury trial:
The necessity of paying [$75 in arbitrators' fees] as the condition for the right to appeal [from a mandatory arbitration award] would seemingly operate as a strong deterrent, amounting practically to a denial of that right, if the case should involve only . . . as little as $250.
Application of Smith, 381 Pa. at 232, 112 A.2d at 630. Thus, the amount of sanctions imposed in a given case must not be so disproportionate to the amount in controversy so as to operate as a practical denial of the right to a jury trial in civil cases.
In the present case, the amount in controversy was arguably between $60,441.80 (the arbitration award) and $150,000.00 (the amount the Richardsons demanded in their settlement conference statement filed in the circuit court). Although no fixed lines can be drawn, we do not believe the $5,234.41 sanction was unreasonable. Christie-Labbert, 39 Wash. App. at 500, 693 P.2d at 163 (appellate court ordered sanction of $3,000 in attorneys' fees plus costs against party that had failed in trial de novo to improve on $3,045.42 arbitration award entered against him).
When considering the important interests that HAR 26 serves and the limits placed on its use, we cannot say that HAR 26 imposed an unreasonable burden on the Richardsons' right to a civil jury trial. Therefore, we conclude that the sanctions awarded in this case did not violate due process or article I, § 13.
b. Equal Protection of the Laws
Finally, the Richardsons claim that their right to equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution was violated "to the extent that [HAR 26) is applied only to a limited class of tort victims exercising their right to a jury trial(.)" Despite their focus on HAR 26, the Richardsons essentially challenge the constitutional validity of the following classification made by HRS § 601-20(b) (1992), which provides: "All civil actions in tort, having a probable jury award value, not reduced by the issue of liability, exclusive of interests and costs, of $150,000 or less, shall be submitted to the [CAAP]." Thus, litigants compelled to participate in the CAAP by HRS § 601-20(b) are subject to HAR 26 sanctions if they exercise their right to a jury trial while other litigants are not. We must first determine the lev
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|