October, 2020 - Case Summaries - Personal Injury / Civil

*Disclaimer* - the below case summaries are not to be construed as legal advice, they are nonexhaustive, and they contain only my own summary/interpretation of the cases so noted.

Topics Include: Untimely Motion in Limine; Expert Testimony Methodologies; Lulled into Inaction re Statute of Limitations Issue

NO. CAAP-17-0000206 JIHYUN SIM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KONA ISLANDER… Defendants-Appellees

(MEMORANDUM OPINION)

Issues on Appeal:

  • (1) summarily denying Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of certain laws and adjudicative facts, as asserted in their trial brief;

  • (2) permitting the trial testimony of Defendants' expert, Vincent Di Maio, M.D. (Di Maio);

  • (3) denying Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial; and

  • (4) granting Van Dyck's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the statute of limitations.

 

Background:In 2013, Decedent drowned at a condo pool.  The AOAO are defendants in this matter.

Lower Court Decision: At the close of Plaintiffs' case on October 25, 2016, the Circuit Court granted Van Dyck's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on his statute-of-limitations defense, brought pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 50(a) (Rule 50(a) motion). On October 27, 2016, the jury returned a special verdict form in favor of AOAO KII and HMC, finding that both defendants were not negligent. Following entry of the Judgment, Plaintiffs timely filed this appeal.

 

Trial Brief Denied as a Late Motion in Limine:

  • Plf's "trial brief," a day prior to trial, sought judicial notice of certain documents, and asked that opposing parties be estopped from taking positions contrary to their prior declarations.

    "Brief" Untimely as a Motion in Limine: "[A]lthough it's called trial brief, the court has reviewed this document filed the day before trial. Finds it's not fair to the defense. It really is in essence either a motion in limine or a pretrial motion, so the court will deny it based on untimeliness."

  • ICA Holding re Judicial Notice - No Showing of Harm: "Here, even if the Circuit Court erred in denying Plaintiffs' requests for judicial notice, which we do not decide, we cannot conclude that the asserted defect is inconsistent with substantial justice. With respect to Plaintiffs' Requests A, C, D, E, and G, Plaintiffs have made no effort to demonstrate how the denial of these requests prejudiced their case or otherwise affected their substantial rights."

    ICA Holding re Estoppel - No Showing of Harm: "Plaintiffs thus made the existence of Van Dyck's July 5, 2016 declaration known to the jury. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiffs also obtained the result they sought in their trial brief – testimony from Van Dyck that was consistent with his declaration."

 

Expert Testimony Issue - Bad Methodoligies:

  • Background: Plf's object to the methodologies etc of the expert doctor. Def's argued that though the testimony was objected to pre-trial via motion (denied), Plf's failed to object later at trial.

  • Rule re No Objection at Trial: "[W]hen the trial court makes a definitive pretrial ruling that evidence is admissible, the party opposing that ruling need not renew its objection during trial in order to preserve its claim on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted." Kobashigawa v. Silva, 129 Hawai#i 313, 321, 300 P.3d 579, 587 (2013); see HRE Rule 103(a)."

  • ICA Holding - Not Waived: "Plaintiffs did not waive their objection to evidence of Di Maio's opinions, as articulated in their motion. That objection was preserved, even in the absence of renewed objections when such evidence was presented during trial."

  • Holding re Testimony - No Showing of Harm: "Here, even if the admission of DiMaio's testimony was erroneous, which we do not decide, we cannot conclude that the asserted defect is inconsistent with substantial justice. The record shows that the jury did not reach the issue of causation, and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the admission of DeMaio's testimony on the issue of causation affected their substantial rights. See Shinn, 120 Hawai#i at 20, 200 P.3d at 389."

 

Denial of Motion for New Trial:

  • Rule: "The denial of a motion for a new trial is within the trial court's discretion, and "we will not reverse that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." Stanford Carr Development Corp. v. Unity House, Inc., 111 Hawaii 286, 296, 141 P.3d 459, 469 (2006) (quoting In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawaii 443, 454, 979 P.2d 39, 50 (1999)). The movant must convince the court "that the verdict rendered for its opponent is against the manifest weight of the evidence." Id. (quoting Herbert, 90 Hawaii at 454, 979 P.2d at 50)."

  • Holding - No Abuse of Discretion.

 

Statute of Limitations Issue:

  • Plf's Argue: Plf's did not file a complaint against one of the defendants within the two-year statute of limitations, but argue that they were "lulled" into inaction by statements said defendant had made and therefore the SOLs should have been tolled.

  • Rule: "This court has clarified that "'lulling' is not a distinct legal doctrine, but simply one application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel." Wiesenberg v. University of Hawaii, No. CAAP-15-0000711, 2019 WL 2066756, at *7 (Haw. App. May 10, 2019) (Mem. Op.); see also Mauian Hotel, 52 Haw. at 570, 481 P.2d 315 ("It appears that in reliance on the stipulation[, the third-party defendant] did not file a cross claim . . . until the statute of limitations had run."); Vidinha v. Miyaki, 112 Hawaii 336, 342, 145 P.3d 879, 885 (App. 2006) (analyzing "lulling" under equitable estoppel doctrine). Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming to have been lulled into inaction until the statute of limitations ran on a claim "must show that he or she has detrimentally relied on the representation or conduct of the person sought to be estopped [from asserting a statute-of- limitations defense], and that such reliance was reasonable." Vidinha, 112 Hawaii at 342, 145 P.3d at 885 (quoting Doherty v. Hartford Ins. Group, 58 Haw. 570, 573, 574 P.2d 132, 134-35 (1978))."

Holding - No Tolling:

  • "Here, upon review of the record, it appears that Plaintiffs produced no evidence that they detrimentally relied on Van Dyck's alleged statement to the police in July 2013 that Jisu could not swim."

  • "Considering the evidence and the inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, we conclude there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that Van Dyck fraudulently concealed evidence supporting an element of a wrongful death claim against Van Dyck. The Circuit Court thus did not err in so ruling. Accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err…"

 

NO. CAAP-17-0000137

ABIGAIL K. KAWANANAKOA, v. KAPIOLANI MARIGNOLI

SDO

 Background: Kawananokoa sued Kapiolani and Duccio for return of a portrait of her family member; portrait is located in Italy.

 

ICA Construed Complaint as both a quasi in rem and in personam nature: Based on the Complaint, this action was of both a quasi in rem and in personam nature, and we construe Kawananakoa's arguments on appeal to be that the circuit court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the Portrait and/or in personam jurisdiction over Duccio.

 Holding:

  • In rem and Quasi - No JX: it was undisputed that the Portrait was located in Italy during the course of this action. The circuit court therefore did not have in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the Portrait and did not err in its decision in this regard. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 199 (1977) (stating that quasi in rem jurisdiction is "based on the court's power over property within its territory").

Rules re Personal JX:

  • There are "two types of personal jurisdiction: 'general' (sometimes called 'all-purpose') jurisdiction and 'specific' (sometimes called 'case-linked') jurisdiction." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). "A court with general jurisdiction may hear any claim against that defendant, even if all the incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different State." Id. (emphasis in original). However, in order for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Id.

  • "[G]eneral jurisdiction exists where a defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum; the exercise of jurisdiction in such a case does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." In Interest of Doe, 83 Hawaii at 374, 926 P.2d at 1297.

Holding - no facts alleged or sworn to establishing this.

  • Personal: If a defendant's contacts with the forum are not continuous and systematic, the forum may exercise only specific jurisdiction, and due process requires application of the following three-part test: (1) The nonresident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. In Interest of Doe, 83 Hawaii at 374, 926 P.2d at 1297.