Kaneko v. Hilo Coast Processing

• Decision Date: 10 November 1982
• Docket Number: No. 7378,7378
• Citation: Kaneko v. Hilo Coast Processing, 65 Haw. 447, 654 P.2d 343 (Haw. 1982)
• Parties: Milton T. KANEKO, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. HILO COAST PROCESSING, a corporation, Defendant, v. MUTUAL WELDING, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 343

654 P.2d 343

65 Haw. 447

Milton T. KANEKO, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. HILO COAST PROCESSING, a corporation, Defendant, v. MUTUAL WELDING, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

No. 7378.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Nov. 10, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In deciding whether a product is involved to which the doctrine of strict liability applies, the court should take into account the policy considerations underlying the doctrine along with examination of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, the Model Uniform Products Liability Act and applicable case law, rather than relying strictly on dictionary definitions.

2. Strict products liability applies to hold a seller-manufacturer liable in "assembly-type situations" where a defective component part causes injury in the construction of a prefabricated building.

3. The "occasional seller" exception found in § 402A, Restatement (Second) of Torts, applies to ordinary persons who enter into isolated sales of products, not to a manufacturer who is in the business of producing such products.

4. Manufacturer's incentive to produce safe products will not be lessened by the merger of comparative negligence and strict products liability. Manufacturers will still remain strictly liable; only plaintiff's award will be affected.

5. The application of comparative negligence concepts to strict products liability will not present an impossible task for juries that must balance plaintiff's misconduct with defendant's liability for a defective product.

6. Application of comparative negligence or fault to strict liability equitably apportions fault among the parties and ameliorates the harshness of the "all or nothing" approach. Plaintiff's apportioned fault will reduce but not bar recovery from a manufacturer-seller who remains strictly liable for its defective product.

James F. Ventura, Honolulu (Libkuman, Ventura, Moon & Ayabe, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellant, cross appellee.

William S. Hunt, Honolulu (Hart, Leavitt, Hall & Hunt, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

James Krueger, Wailuku, amicus curiae.

Before RICHARDSON, C.J., LUM and NAKAMURA, JJ., and OGATA and MENOR, Retired Justices, assigned temporarily.

OGATA, Retired Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, cross-appellee, Mutual Welding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Mutual Welding or appellant), from a judgment and order denying Mutual Welding's Motion for New Trial or in the alternative for a Remittitur entered in the Third Circuit Court in favor of and for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant, Milton T. Kaneko (hereinafter Kaneko or appellee). ¹ Appellee Kaneko cross-appealed that portion of the final judgment which reduced the jury award and from the order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the alternative to Amend the Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment and order of the circuit court.

The instant action resulted from injuries sustained by Milton Kaneko who fell while a mill building was being erected for Hilo Coast Processing in Pepeekeo, Hawaii.

Hilo Coast Processing Company seeking to erect several new buildings at its mill site in Pepeekeo, Hawaii, hired W.A. Hirai and Associates, an architectural design firm, to design and draft the plans for these buildings. After the plans were drafted and pursuant to the specifications contained therein, Mutual Welding manufactured and fabricated the mill building. Central Pacific Boiler and Piping was hired to erect the prefabricated building manufactured by Mutual Welding. Milton Kaneko was an ironworker employed by Central Pacific Boiler and Piping.

On this particular job, Kaneko was an ironworker who was responsible for connecting girts (steel beams in a horizontal position) to clips which were located on columns (steel beams in a vertical position). After each girt was connected, the ironworker would then climb higher on the column and connect the next girt by standing on the girt that had just been connected. On August 16, 1973, while Kaneko was in the process of connecting the third girt, some 10 to 20 feet in the air, the second girt upon which he was standing on came loose and as a result appellee fell to the ground. It was discovered that the clip to which the second girt had been attached had only been tack welded or in other words, welded temporarily until a full filler weld could be made.

Kaneko suffered injuries to his back from the fall which required two laminectomies (back surgery) to the L 4-5 disc region. Consequently, appellee is unable to perform as an ironworker again and can not do heavy lifting.

This matter came for trial on September 25, 1978. The jury returned its special verdict as follows on October 17, 1978:

1.    Was Mutual Welding
                      Negligent?                           X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                2.    If so, was said negligence a
                      proximate cause of said
                      accident of 8/16/73?                 X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                3.    Is Mutual Welding strictly
                      liable to Plaintiff?                 X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                4.    If so, was such strict
                      liability a proximate cause of
                      the accident of 8/16/73?             X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                5.    Is Mutual Welding liable
                      for breach of warranty?              X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                6.    If so, was said breach of
                      warranty a proximate cause
                      of the accident of 8/16/73?          X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                7.    Was Hilo Coast Processing
                      negligent                                  X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                8.    If so, was said negligence a
                      proximate cause of said
                      accident of 8/16/73?                       X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                9.    Was Milton Kaneko
                      negligent?                           X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                10.   If so, was said negligence a
                      proximate cause of said
                      accident of 8/16/73?                 X
                                                          ----  ----
                                                          Yes   No
                11.   If you have found more
                      than one of the parties
                      liable and that liability a
                      proximate cause of the
                      accident of 8/16/73 then
                      make the following
                      apportionment of liability for the
                      accident of 8/16/73
                         Mutual Welding                    73   %
                                                          ----
                         Hilo Coast Processing              0   %
                                                          ----
                         Milton Kaneko                     27   %
                                                          ----
                                                   TOTAL  100   %
                                                          ----
                

12. If you have found any of the Defendants

liable then determine damages as follows:

      A.     Special Damages
                               1.  Medical Bills          $ 4,800.12
                                                          -----------
                               2.  Loss of wages to date  $32,500.00
                                                          -----------
                      B.     General Damages
                             1.    Pain and suffering     $123,000.00
                                                          -----------
                             2.    Diminished earning
                                   Capacity               $201,500.00
                                                          -----------
                                   /s/ John G. Baird
                             ----------------------------------------
                                       Foreperson
                

The trial court then entered judgment for Kaneko on November 6, 1978, and reduced the jury award to $264,114.08, proportionate to Kaneko's percentage of liability, allowed costs against Mutual Welding and dismissed appellee's action against Hilo Coast Processing on the merits.

Thereafter on November 14, 1978, Mutual Welding filed a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative for a Remittitur. That motion was denied by the trial court on December 22, 1978.

Appellee Kaneko also sought post-judgment relief by filing on November 16, 1978, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion to Amend Judgment. This motion was also denied by the court on December 22, 1978. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.

I

At the outset, we take note of the fact that in this appeal, Mutual Welding has not challenged the jury findings with regard to negligence or breach of warranty. Thus, appellee is entitled to recover damages under these alternative theories. The fact appellee can proceed and recover under these other theories does not undercut our ability to examine the application of the strict liability doctrine in this case. Cf. Cox v. Shaffer, 223 Pa.Super. 429, 302 A.2d 456 (1973) (pretrial dismissal of products liability theory not affect plaintiff's right to recovery under negligence cause of action); Immergluck v. Ridgeview House Inc., 53 Ill.App.3d 472, 368 N.E.2d 803, 11 Ill.Dec. 252 (1977) (dismissal of strict liability action not affect other theories).

Turning now to appellant's first contention of error, Mutual Welding asserts that the doctrine of strict products liability should not have been applied to the instant case.

In Stewart v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 52 Haw. 71, 75, 470 P.2d 240, 243 (1970), the doctrine of strict liability in tort was adopted. We said:

[W]...