87 Hawai'i 413, Josue v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 21016,21016 |
| Citation | 958 P.2d 535,87 Hawaii 413 |
| Parties | 87 Hawai'i 413, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,260 Donald JOSUE, Jr. and Ramona Josue, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a Michigan corporation, and American Isuzu Motors, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and Iaone W.K. Frias, Does 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, and Doe Partnerships 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Collin M. (Marty) Fritz and Hilary Benson Gangnes (of Trecker & Fritz), on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kenneth K. Fukunaga and Lois H. Yamaguchi (of Fukunaga, Matayoshi Hershey & Ching), on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendants-appellees.
Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ.
This appeal arises from injuries sustained by plaintiff-appellant Donald Josue, Jr. (Donald) in a single-motor vehicle accident on April 3, 1994, wherein Donald was ejected from the bed of an Isuzu pickup truck. Donald and his mother, plaintiff-appellant Ramona Josue [hereinafter, collectively, the plaintiffs], filed a lawsuit against, among others, defendants-appellees Isuzu Motors America, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and American Isuzu Motors, Inc., a California Corporation [hereinafter, collectively, Isuzu]. All of the claims alleged in the complaint were based solely on Isuzu's failure to provide a warning label informing users of the pickup truck of the dangers involved with riding in the bed of the truck.
The circuit court issued two summary judgment orders, from which the plaintiffs now appeal, effectively dismissing all the claims against Isuzu. The orders ruled in pertinent part "that riding unrestrained in the bed of a pickup truck ... is an open and obvious danger as a matter of law, and the manufacturer of a pickup truck is not under a duty to warn potential passengers and users of the obvious danger of riding unrestrained in the bed of a pickup truck."
For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the dangers of riding unrestrained in an open cargo bed of a pickup truck are obvious and generally known to the ordinary user and that therefore Isuzu had no duty to warn potential passengers of those dangers. We note that the plaintiffs' contention that the circuit court abused its discretion by ruling on the first summary judgment order despite their request for additional time to complete discovery is without merit. We therefore affirm the circuit court's orders.
During the early morning hours of April 3, 1994, a 1992 Isuzu pickup truck driven by Iaone W.K. Frias was traveling westbound on Farrington Highway on the island of Oahu. As a result of Frias having lost control of the wheel, the pickup truck hit a concrete center divider and overturned. Donald, a passenger who was riding unrestrained in the bed of the pickup truck, was ejected from the truck, thereby rendering him a paraplegic. At the time of the accident, Donald was seventeen years old.
On April 2, 1996, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the circuit court against Frias and Isuzu, whom the plaintiffs contended was either the designer, manufacturer, seller, or distributor of the pickup truck. As against Isuzu, the complaint essentially alleged that the pickup truck was defectively designed because it did not contain a warning that informed users of the pickup truck of the dangers involved with riding in the pickup truck's bed. 1 The complaint asserted, inter alia: (1) negligent failure to warn; (2) strict liability for failure to warn; (3) breach of express and implied warranties; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) punitive damages. 2
On March 6, 1997, Isuzu filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [hereinafter, Motion I]. In support of Motion I, Isuzu stated that whether there is a duty to warn presents a question of law. Isuzu asserted that it had no duty to warn users of the pickup truck about the dangers associated with riding in the bed because (1) there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger and (2) riding in the bed of a pickup truck is an open and obvious danger to reasonable persons. Isuzu argued that the plaintiffs, therefore, had no viable claim that the pickup truck was defective. Isuzu further requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this lawsuit.
Although the hearing on Motion I was set for April 2, 1997, Isuzu, upon the plaintiffs' request, agreed to continue the hearing date to April 22, 1997. In order to effectively respond to Motion I, on April 3, 1997, the plaintiffs, having yet to conduct any discovery, filed a notice of taking depositions upon oral examination [hereinafter, request for deposition], which depositions were to be taken of designated representatives of Isuzu on April 9, 1997. The request for deposition stated in pertinent part:
[Isuzu], pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure, shall designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and are competent and knowledgeable to testify on behalf of [Isuzu], as to the following:
1. The development, implementation, and coordination of Isuzu's safety program prior to the sale of the vehicle which is the subject of this litigation.
2. The development, implementation, and coordination of all safety considerations in preparing owners manuals prior to the sale of the subject vehicle.
3. The development, implementation, and coordination of all safety evaluations in design and marketing of pickup trucks in the 15 years prior to the sale of the subject vehicle.
4. All information possessed by defendants relating to the dangers of persons riding in or being injured in the backs of pickup trucks prior to the accident which is the subject of this litigation.
5. All information possessed by defendants relating to any and all accident statistics or data concerning persons riding in or being injured in the backs of pickup trucks prior to the accident which is the subject of this litigation.
On April 4, 1997, Isuzu moved for a protective order, which sought to bar the plaintiffs from conducting their April 9, 1997 depositions. Isuzu, in its motion for protective order, asserted that, because Motion I presented solely a question of law, the plaintiffs' discovery request would not, in any way, affect the outcome of Motion I. Isuzu maintained that the plaintiffs' depositions would cause Isuzu to expend substantial financial resources and delay further the already-continued hearing date on Motion I. Eventually, however, Isuzu withdrew its motion for protective order on May 17, 1997.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to Motion I on April 14, 1997, requesting therein, pursuant to Rule 56(f) of Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) (1996), 3 a continuance of the hearing on Motion I, which continuance would afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to depose Isuzu concerning its knowledge of the danger posed by passengers riding in the pickup truck's bed. The plaintiffs further asserted that, given that the motion to dismiss was actually a motion for summary judgment and that a genuine issue of material fact indeed existed, namely, whether the dangers associated with riding in the back of a pickup truck were open and obvious to foreseeable users, Motion I should be denied. The plaintiffs also asserted that, even assuming, arguendo, that riding in the bed of a pickup truck was an open and obvious danger, Isuzu, as a matter of law, still had a duty to warn.
On May 30, 1997, the circuit court issued its ruling on Motion I [hereinafter, Order I]. Although denying the request for attorneys' fees and costs, the circuit court granted Isuzu's Motion I insofar as it determined that Isuzu had no duty to warn of the dangers associated with riding in a pickup truck's bed. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims as alleged against Isuzu. Order I stated in pertinent part:
Viewing the evidence and the inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the Court finds and concludes that there are no disputed issues of material fact. The Court also finds that defendant Isuzu is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to plaintiffs' claims of negligence and strict liability in the Complaint that are based on or arise from an alleged failure to warn of the dangers and hazards of riding in the bed of the Isuzu pickup truck involved in the April 3, 1994 accident.
The Court further finds as follows:
First, with respect to plaintiffs' request to continue the hearing on the motion, the Court notes that the Complaint was filed on April 2, 1996, and plaintiffs have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in this case. Further, plaintiffs counsel did not submit an affidavit in compliance with HRCP Rule 56(f) setting forth the reasons why plaintiff cannot submit by affidavit the facts essential to justify their opposition to the present motion. Therefore, plaintiffs' request for a continuance is denied.
Second, the existence of duty to warn is entirely a question of law for the Court to decide. Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, [Inc.], 73 Haw. 39, 833 P.2d 70 (1992).
Third, Hawai'i appellate courts have declined to impose a duty to warn of open and obvious hazards and risks. Wagatsuma v. Patch, 10 Haw.App. 547, 879 P.2d 572 (1994); Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. 55, 656 P.2d 1336 (1982); and Ontai v. Straub Clinic and Hosp., Inc., 66 Haw. 27, 659 P.2d 734 (1983).
Fourth, the case of Maneely v. General Motors Corp., 108 F.3d 1176 (1997), filed for publication in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 13, 1997, is directly on point.
Thus, this Court specifically finds and concludes that riding unrestrained in the bed of a pickup truck, such as the Isuzu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delaney v. Deere and Co., No. 82,630.
...(1976); Ogletree v. Navistar International Transportation Corporation, 269 Ga. 443, 500 S.E.2d 570 (1998); Josue v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 87 Hawaii 413, 958 P.2d 535 (1998); Post v. American Cleaning Equipment Corporation, 437 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Ky. 1968); Moran v. Faberge, 273 Md. 538,......
-
Cabalce v. VSE Corp.
...relieved of responsibility for any unnecessarily dangerous conditions of which the employee has notice”); Josue v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc., 87 Hawai'i 413, 417, 958 P.2d 535, 539 (1998) (reiterating, in products liability context, that “faced with a plain and palpable danger for purposes of ......
-
Ader v. Estate of Felger
...discovery Ader sought had no bearing on that issue and would have only delayed the inevitable result. See Josue v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc. , 958 P.2d 535, 540 (Haw.1998) (“Because this is solely a question of law, the discovery requested was not only irrelevant, but would have subjected the ......
-
Exotics Hawaii v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours
...why a continuance is necessary and demonstrate specifically how postponement would enable rebuttal); Josue v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc., 87 Hawai`i 413, 416, 958 P.2d 535, 538 (1998) (same). In sum, the circuit court has the discretion to "deny the motion for summary judgment, order a continua......