Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 25430.,25430. |
| Citation | 152 P.3d 504 |
| Parties | The ESTATE OF Aloysius KLINK, by its Special Administratrix, Hildegard T. KLINK; Dania M. Klink, a minor, by Hildegard T. Klink, as Her Next Friend; Hildegard T. Klink; Diana Klink-James; Julia A. Klink; and Alexander M. Klink, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Hawai`i, Defendant-Appellee, and Subaru of America, Inc.; Gordon Souder; Paul S. Ogasawara; John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Business Entities 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; and Doe Governmental Agencies 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Michael P. Akana, Gary A. Berticevich, and Kevin H.S. Yuen, on the briefs, for the plaintiff-appellant Estate of Aloysius Klink.
Robin M. Kishi, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs, for the defendant-appellee State of Hawai`i.
The plaintiffs-appellants Hildegard T. Klink, individually, as special administratrix of the estate of Aloysius Klink (Klink), and as next of friend of Dania M. Klink, a minor, Michael Klink, Diana Klink-James, Julia A. Klink, and Alexander M. Klink [hereinafter, collectively, "the Appellants"] appeal from the October 7, 2002 amended judgment of the circuit court of the third circuit, the Honorable Riki May Amano presiding, in favor of the defendant-appellee State of Hawai`i [hereinafter, the State] and against the Appellants.
The present matter concerns the death of Klink in an automobile accident, which occurred on the island of Hawai`i on March 9, 1997. The Appellants raise sixteen points of error on appeal, contending in substance that the circuit court: (1) erred in concluding that the State fulfilled its duty to design, construct, and maintain the highway and its duty to warn; (2) abused its discretion in excluding evidence of prior and subsequent accidents near the site of the subject accident; (3) clearly erred in finding that a warning sign was in place on the morning of the accident approximately 500 feet before the accident site; and (4) abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness for the State to testify regarding matters allegedly beyond the scope of his expertise. Intertwined with these points of error, the Appellants also challenge as clearly erroneous certain findings of fact (FOFs) entered by the circuit court on March 18, 2002.
For the reasons discussed infra in section III, we hold, on the record before us, that the State is liable to the Appellants as a matter of law. We therefore vacate the circuit court's October 7, 2002 amended judgment and remand for a trial on the issue of the Appellants' damages.
At approximately 7:00 a.m. on March 9, 1997, on a section of Route 130, located on the island of Hawai`i and known as the Pãhoa Bypass, a northbound Subaru being driven by Klink crossed over the center line and into the southbound lane, colliding with an oncoming truck driven by Gordon Souder, killing Klink.
John Silva came upon the accident scene before the arrival of any police and proceeded to a local store to call for assistance. He did not recall seeing any water runoff on the highway.
Officer Martin Ellazar of the Hawai`i County Police Department (HCPD), trained in accident investigation and reconstruction, was assigned to the Traffic Enforcement Unit on the morning of the accident and arrived at the scene approximately one hour and fifteen minutes after the accident had occurred. He later testified that, throughout his approximately hour-long investigation, it was raining intermittently, he observed water traveling across the roadway, and he photographed an area "where the water runoff [wa]s up against the berm and the water [was] coming off of the northbound into the southbound lane." Officer Ellazar also observed runoff debris—material deposited both along the lower western portion of the roadway and along the shoulder—which he said was indicative of water flowing across the roadway, but could not estimate when the debris had been deposited. At the time, he did not observe any water flowing from the eastside driveway that fronted the highway at the location of the accident.
HCPD Officer Randall Aurello, who arrived at the scene at least fifteen minutes after the accident, did not observe any water flowing from the east side of the highway and crossing the roadway, nor did he observe any runoff debris on the northbound lane, but he did observe some water running down the southbound lane and the berm on the west side of the road. The water flow did not concern him.
Sometime before 1991, the State approved highway designs drafted by a private firm for construction of the Pãhoa Bypass and the accompanying shoulder areas, earthen banks, and driveways in the area of the accident. The State constructed the highway and opened it for traffic in 1991 and has had the legal responsibility to maintain it since then. Howard Haymore, an employee of the State's Department of Transportation (DOT), supervised its construction. The highway runs generally north and south, but the section where the accident occurred turns to the west on a 2000-foot radius curve with a 4.5 percent downhill grade toward the north and an average 2.4 percent superelevation1 down toward the west. The highway plans included a cutbank on the eastern shoulder and the construction of two driveways in the area of the Klink accident. During the construction process, the shoulder of the road was cut into in order to achieve a uniform slope. Prior to the March 9, 1997 accident, there was no drainage system at the site on the eastern shoulder but, in 1998, the DOT installed an interceptor ditch.
On March 3, 1998, the Appellants filed a first amended complaint against the State and the other defendants,2 alleging, inter alia: (1) that the State negligently designed, constructed, and maintained the Pãhoa Bypass, such that the roadway was "deficient, dangerous, and inadequate"; (2) that the State failed to warn motorists adequately of the unsafe condition of the Bypass; and (3) that the State's negligence was the legal cause3 of Klink's death.
On June 12, 2001, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude police reports describing twenty-two prior accidents and five subsequent accidents near the site of the subject collision. The Appellants' counsel partially opposed the motion, seeking to have seven of the reports admitted for consideration by their accident reconstruction expert, Harry Krueper:
[Counsel]: ... I have no problem ... with the real substance of the motion [to exclude the reports]. It's just that any time any expert analyzes a traffic accident he ordinarily looks at ... incidences that occurred on the roadway. I don't believe ... Krueper is gonna specifically refer to the factors ... involved in other accidents but he would I believe ... say that he looked at the other accidents to determine what other factors may have influenced his investigation. But beyond that I don't think that he's going to say that ... because of an accident that occurred in 1992 he believes that this particular condition ... is negligent....
The court: Is he offering an opinion as to negligence?
[Counsel]: No, ... not negligence, rather it's defective in design; excuse me. But I don't believe he's gonna refer ... specifically to any other accidents. He will say ... that he did look at all other incidences on this particular stretch of roadway to see if there was something there that clued him into what would be a design defect.... [O]ther than that I don't think he'll refer to anything specifically.
The court: My experience with design is the facts stand on their own and that being its dimensions of angles.
[Counsel]: That's correct. That is correct, yes. But ... I think any expert looking at whether the roadway is ... defective does consider other incidences that occurred on the roadway, which he certainly did, as did ... [the State's expert, Andrew] Levitt, but he's not gonna specifically say that because of this accident[] or because of a factor in another accident that this indicates ... a design defect[].
So I understand.... I really have no objection to the motion with that caveat, Your Honor.
(Some capitalization altered.) The circuit court then granted the motion, noting "with respect to the caveat, I am just wondering if there would be some sort of ... objection as to relevancy ... because I can't see how [the accident reports] would be relevant especially with respect to an expert opinion on design." The police reports that the Appellants' counsel sought to offer into evidence involved seven accidents that occurred prior to March 9, 1997 in rainy conditions at the following locations:
Distance from
Klink's Point
Date of Accident of Impact4
August 7, 1993 302 feet north
February 17, 1994 457 feet north
July 29, 1994 7392 feet north
September 9, 1994 0 feet5
August 25, 1995 528 feet north
March 3, 1996 1056 feet north
May 18, 1996 528 feet north
The September 9, 1994 accident report and witness interview states that at 6:50 a.m., in rainy conditions, the driver of a northbound vehicle observed a southbound vehicle cross the center line and enter the northbound lane of travel. The northbound driver successfully avoided a collision by maneuvering onto the shoulder of the highway but observed in her rearview mirror that the southbound vehicle "kept coming into the [north]bound lane," striking the vehicle following directly behind her. The accident occurred in the vicinity of the "Reduced Speed 45 MPH" sign where Klink's vehicle came to a rest on the day of the Klink accident. Aside from a notation indicating "rain" on the report under "Weather Conditions," however, there is no mention made of the road conditions nor of the underlying cause of the southbound vehicle entering the oncoming lane of traffic.
The August 25, 1995...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Maesaka-Hirata, SCWC-14-0000914
...82 P.3d 411, 423 (2003) ). Conclusions of law are ordinarily reviewed under the right/wrong standard. Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai‘i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007). A conclusion of law that is supported by the trial court’s findings of fact and reflects an applicati......
-
Balogh v. Balogh
...COL are not binding upon an appellate court and are usually reviewed under the right/wrong standard. Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai‘i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007).A COL that "is supported by the trial court's FOFs and that reflects an application of the correct rule......
-
Kaho`Ohanohano v. Dhs, State
...the court's conclusions are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai`i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted) (format III. DISCUSSION As previously stated, DH......
-
Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Hcdch
...quality and, probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai`i. 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) (citations, internal quotation marks, original brackets, and ellipses omitted) (format altered). B. Conclusi......