Bryan v. Kitamura

• Decision Date: 05 January 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 80-0217.
• Citation: 529 F. Supp. 394
• Parties: Michael G. BRYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Teruo KITAMURA, etc., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

529 F. Supp. 394

Michael G. BRYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Teruo KITAMURA, etc., et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 80-0217.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii.

January 5, 1982.

Steven J. Trecker and Collin M. Fritz, Kailua, Hawaii, for plaintiffs.

Richard E. Stifel, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Teruo Kitamura and Miyako Kitamura.

James Kawashima, J. Douglas Ing, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Edward Sasaki.

Ronald T. Y. Moon, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Doris I. Sasaki.

William L. Fleming, Roy A. Vitousek, III, Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Hiroo and Lillian Hayashi.

George W. Brandt, Thomas E. Cook, Lyons, Hagerman & Brandt, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Myles Tamanaha, Dayne Tamanaha, and Harriet Tamanaha.

Mamoru Shimokusu, Kushi, Shimokusu & Kushi, Hilo, Hawaii, for Carol Shimaoka and as guardian for Keith Tokuda.

DENIAL OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PENCE, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On the night of July 13, 1979, a group of juveniles allegedly stole a 1978 Ford van in Hilo and drove approximately 35 miles to Pohakuloa Training Area, where they attempted to steal guns and ammunition from a military ammunition depot. During the attempted theft, the juveniles shot and injured the plaintiffs, who were military personnel standing guard at the ammunition depot. At the time of the incident, the juveniles involved were between 14 and 16 years of age.

Plaintiffs brought this suit against both the juveniles and their parents. Plaintiffs assert that the parents are liable under section 577-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), which provides that parents are jointly and severally liable for the tortious acts of their unmarried minor children.

Defendants challenge the constitutionality of this statute by way of motions to dismiss and motions for partial summary judgment. Defendants claim that the statute unconstitutionally burdens the family by imposing liability on parents without fault in a manner that violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.

II. HAWAII'S PARENTAL LIABILITY STATUTE

Hawaii's parental liability statute finds its origin in the Acts of 1846 which were drafted by John Ricord, the first Attorney General of the Kingdom of Hawaii.¹ The provision became codified as section 1288 of the Civil Code, and provided that the father "shall be the natural guardian of their children's persons and of their property; he shall be liable in damages for the tortious acts committed by them ...."²

In 1931, the provisions of the Civil Code relating to parental responsibilities were revised to make both the mother and the father responsible for the acts of their children.³

Hawaii's parental liability statute, HRS section 577-3,⁴ reads, in relevant part, as follows:

The father and mother of unmarried minor children shall jointly and severally be liable in damages for tortious acts committed by their children, and shall be jointly and severally entitled to prosecute and defend all actions in which the children or their individual property may be concerned.

Although this section also provides that the guardianship of an unmarried minor may, under certain circumstances, devolve upon one parent, the parental liability portion of the statute specifically imposes liability on both the mother and father, without reference to custody, and does not apply to guardians who are not the mother or the father of the child.

Hawaii's parental liability statute has not been extensively interpreted by the Hawaii Supreme Court. In Day v. Day, 8 Haw. 715 (1891), that court held that the statute could not be interpreted to impose liability on a parent when the child, because of his young age, was not himself legally responsible for his torts.

In Victoria v. Palama, 15 Haw. 127 (1903), defendant's seven-year-old son accidentally shot another minor with a shotgun, destroying the vision of one eye. The Supreme Court upheld a directed verdict against the father stating that "the father can be held responsible in damages for the torts of his infant in every case where the infant itself would be liable at the common law." 15 Haw. at 129.

Finally, in Rathburn v. Kaio, 23 Haw. 541 (1916), the court held that the statute could not be used to impose liability on parents for acts which the court found to be an alleged breach of contract and not tortious in nature.

It does not appear that the Supreme Court of Hawaii has ever heard a challenge to the constitutionality of section 577-3.⁵

III. THE PISCATAWAY CASE

In Piscataway Township Bd. of Ed. v. Caffiero, 86 N.J. 308, 431 A.2d 799 (1981), appeal dismissed for want of a sub. fed. ques., ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 560, 70 L.Ed.2d 470 (1981), the Board of Education brought suit against the parents of minors who had allegedly damaged school property. The basis for the action was a New Jersey statute which subjects the parents or guardians of minor public school children to liability for damage to school property caused by their children.⁶ A New Jersey Superior Court held that the statute violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, but the appellate division reversed, holding that the statute violated neither the due process nor the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Piscataway Township Bd. of Ed. v. Caffiero, 173 N.J.Super. 204, 413 A.2d 981 (1980). The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the appellate division and the parents filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

On November 9, 1981, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Caffiero v. Piscataway Township Bd. of Ed., ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 560, 70 L.Ed.2d 470 (1981). This disposition is the equivalent to an affirmance on the merits. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975); McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm'n., 424 U.S. 645, 646, 96 S.Ct. 1154, 47 L.Ed.2d 366 (1976). This court is therefore bound by the result in Piscataway to the extent that the two cases may involve the same legal issues. Hicks, supra, 422 U.S. at 343-44, 95 S.Ct. at 2288-89; McCarthy, supra, 424 U.S. at 646, 96 S.Ct. at 1154.

Defendants claim that this case is distinguishable from Piscataway because the Hawaii parental liability statute is much broader than the New Jersey statute which applied only to the parents and guardians of public school children who damage school property. Defendants also argue that HRS 577-3 contains constitutional obligations not found in the New Jersey statute.⁷

Defendants' argument has merit. Although dismissal of an appeal is binding on subsequent cases involving similar facts,⁸ such a dismissal does not necessarily adopt the opinion or reasoning of the court below.⁹ Although the reasoning of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Piscataway is broad enough to control many of the issues involved here, this court finds that the Hawaii statute differs significantly from the New Jersey statute upheld in Piscataway and therefore requires detailed consideration of its alleged constitutional defects.

IV. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Defendants' principal contention is that the Hawaii statute is violative of the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment because it unreasonably interferes with a right that is "fundamental", in this case the right of parents to raise a family without the state's imposing unreasonable financial burdens upon them. Although the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment have in many instances been interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, both have been used similarly to protect fundamental substantive rights.¹⁰

Under both substantive due process and fundamental rights equal protection analysis, a court must first identify a right that is affected by the challenged state action.¹¹ Under equal protection analysis, if a statute interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is "supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to only those interests."¹² If a fundamental right is not affected, it suffices that the statute have a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.¹³

Defendants argue that the Hawaii parental liability statute affects fundamental rights associated with the family. They base their argument on a series of Supreme Court decisions that recognize the importance of personal decisions affecting the family. These cases have held that some personal choices affecting the family are so important that they must be deemed fundamental rights for the purposes of constitutional analysis. For example, the Court has held that freedom of choice in marriage,¹⁴ child bearing,¹⁵ and child rearing,¹⁶ are within this category.

Defendants attempt to bring the Hawaii parental liability statute within the scope of these decisions by arguing that it discourages persons from having children and interferes with the raising of children by placing a severe economic burden on the parents. This court rejects defendants' conclusions.

Those rights found to be fundamental by the Court share the characteristic of involving freedom of choice. For example, in Zablocki v. Redhail, supra, the Court found unconstitutional a statute which interfered with a person's decision to marry by requiring an individual with child support obligations to seek court approval before marrying.¹⁷ Similarly, in the abortion and birth control cases, the Court expressed concern over regulation which interfered with a person's right to decide whether or not to have children.¹⁸

The Hawaii statute places no real burden on either the decision to have a child or decisions concerning childrearing. This court could not reasonably conclude that the threat of potential tort liability plays any role in the decision of parents whether or not to have children. Likewise, the Hawaii statute...