 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richardson v. Sport Shinko8/29/1994
--REF-->2(A). We hold that the purpose is a legitimate one. We turn our inquiry then to whether it was reasonable for the legislature to believe that assigning to the CAAP only tort actions having a probable jury award value of $150,000.00 or less would promote its objectives. Western & Southern Life, 451 U.S. at 668; Kaneohe Bay, 75 Haw. at 260, 861 P.2d at 7. In doing so, we "will only seek to determine whether any reasonable justification can be conceived to uphold the legislative enactment." Kaneohe Bay, 75 Haw. at 260, 861 P.2d at 7 (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted). The § 601-20(b) classification passes this examination.
First, the legislature could reasonably believe that actions involving more than $150,000.00 would generally require arbitration proceedings of greater length than those intended to be produced by the CAAP, and that "the cost of a subsequent trial . . . [would be] very small, relative to the claim itself." See Kimbrough, 478 F. Supp. at 576 (quoting "Statement of Attorney General Griffin Bell before the Committee on the Judiciary Concerning Arbitration on April 14, 1978").
Second, it is fair to presume as a general matter that tort cases will involve only claims for money damages. "In such cases, often the only dispute is over the amount of money owed by one party to the other. In contrast, pleas for equitable relief would probably mean increased complexity and could require the continuing supervision of the court. Such cases would be inappropriate for arbitration." Id.
Because the § 601-20(b) classification conceivably furthers the CAAP's objectives, we need look no further. See Daoang v. Department of Educ., 63 Haw. 501, 504-06, 630 P.2d 629, 631-32 (1981) ("if a statute furthers a stated objective even to the slightest degree, this court will affirm its validity").
Accordingly, we hold that HRS § 601-20(b) does not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we affirm both the judgment and award of sanctions against the Richardsons.
Ronald T.Y. Moon
Robert G. Klein
Steven H. Levinson
Paula A. Nakayama
Mario R. Ramil
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.
|
|