Rodrigues v. State

• Decision Date: 20 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 4833,4833
• Citation: 52 Haw. 156,472 P.2d 509
• Parties: , 52 Haw. 283 Vincent E. RODRIGUES, Jr. and Adaline Rodrigues v. STATE of Hawaii.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 509

472 P.2d 509

52 Haw. 156, 52 Haw. 283

Vincent E. RODRIGUES, Jr. and Adaline Rodrigues v. STATE of Hawaii.

No. 4833.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

July 20, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1970.

[52 Haw. 156] Syllabus by the Court

1. The discretionary function exception in the State Tort Liability Act does not apply to operational level decisions which involve routine everyday matters not requiring evaluation of broad policy factors. Rogers v. State, 51 Haw. 293, 459 P.2d 378 (1969).

2. Where the overflow of surface waters is caused by the obstruction of an adequately designed culvert, the statute of limitations begins to run at each overflow.

3. Each possessor of land may interfere with the natural flow of surface water 4. Interest charges, as an incidental expense of a loan which is incurred by the claimant in good faith to mitigate damages, may be recovered as an item of compensatory damages in civil suits.

for the development of his land so long as such interference is not unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.

5. In the State Tort Liability Act, HRS § 662-2, the prohibition against payment of interest 'prior to judgment' refers to compensation for the delay in payment of money damages which is measured from accrual of the claim for relief until final judgment and does not include interest charges which, as an actual expense, constitutes an item of such money damages.

6. The interest in freedom from negligent infliction of serious mental distress is entitled to independent legal protection.

7. In judging the genuiness of a claim of mental distress, courts and juries may look to 'the quality and genuineness of proof and rely to an extent on the contemporary sophistication of the medical profession and the ability of the court and jury to weed out dishonest claims,' Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249 (1958). In cases other than where proof of mental distress is of a medically significant nature, the general standard of proof required to support a claim of mental distress is some guarantee of genuineness in the circumstances of the case.

8. Serious mental distress may be found where a reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case.

9. Where a claim for mental distress is made, the question of whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in any particular case will be solved most justly by the application of general tort principles. Thus a further limitation on the right of recovery, as in all negligence cases, is that the defendant's obligation to refrain from particular conduct is owed only to those who are foreseeably endangered by the conduct and only with respect to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonably dangerous.

10. Where claims are independent and there is a likelihood that collateral questions concerning the claims may be raised in the future, the trial judge on his own motion or on motion by counsel should direct that separate verdicts on damages be returned on each of the claims to aid the reviewing court in isolating error and to prevent unnecessary retrial of issues.

Ronald Y. Amemiya, William H. Yim and Walton D. Y. Hong, Deputy Attys. Gen., Honolulu (Bertram T. Kanbara, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, on briefs), for appellant.

Frank D. Padgett, Honolulu (Padgett, Greeley, Marumoto & Akinaka, Honolulu, of counsel), for appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., ABE and LEVINSON, JJ., and HAWKINS, Circuit Judge in place of MARUMOTO, J., disqualified, and LAURETA, Circuit Judge, in place of KOBAYASHI, J., disqualified.

RICHARDSON, Chief Justice.

In a suit instituted under the State Tort Liability Act, judgment was rendered against the State of Hawaii and in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Vincent E. Rodrigues, Jr., for damages caused to their home by surface waters overflowing a blocked drainage culvert.

Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues are owners, as tenants by the entirety, of a houselot located in an improved subdivision at Olowalu, Maui. The subdivision is in a flood plain bounded on the north by sugar cane fields which rise steeply to a mountainous region and on the south by a beach and the ocean. The State's Honoapiilani Highway runs along the Maui coast between the subdivision and the beach.

The Rodrigues' houselot is situated in a tier of lots separated from the highway by an unimproved parcel of land. On the Wailuku side (east) of the Rodrigues' In 1959, Mr. Kaaea informed the State that the drainage culvert was often clogged and that during heavy rains surface water would accumulate on his land. The Maui District Engineer for the State Highway Department noted that the culvert outlet on the beach was often blocked by sand bars created by tidal action. He suggested that Mr. Kaaea telephone the highway department's maintenance department, 'whenever he thinks a heavy rain will fall and * * * a flood condition is imminent' but that it would 'not be necessary for him to clear the channel himself.'

houselot are the adjacent houselots of Mrs. Rodrigues' mother and uncle, Mrs. Kaahui and Mr. Kaaea. The contour of the land slopes gradually downward in an easterly, westerly, and southerly direction from the Rodrigues' lot. The culvert in issue is located approximately 150 feet south of the tier of lots and opposite the property line separating the Kaahui and Kaaea lots. The State highway is constructed at an elevation higher than the surrounding land, and the culvert runs under the highway, opening onto the unimproved parcel of land which separates the tier of lots from the highway and emptying onto the beach on the south side of the highway.

The Rodrigueses began construction of their home in 1966 on the Olowalu lot and completed construction and furnishing just prior to March 23, 1967. During this period of time the Rodrigueses were living in Wailuku with relatives and planned to move into their new home on March 24, 1967. Heavy rains fell on the Olowalu area during the evening of March 23 and the early morning hours of March 24.

The events which occurred during that time may be briefly summarized. At sometime between two and three o'clock in the morning on March 24, Mr. Kaaea telephoned Mr. Tokunaga, the maintenance superintendent of the highway department, to report that his home was in danger of being flooded. On his way west to Olowalu from Wailuku, Tokunaga encountered large boulders, mud, and rushing water at the Lahaina pali section of the Honoapiilani Highway which is located some distance east of Olowalu. After closing the highway, Tokunaga and a member of his maintenance crew continued along in the direction of Olowalu to Ukumehame, which is also located east of Olowalu. Obtaining a grader at Ukumehame, both men returned the way they had come clearing one lane of traffic. Tokunaga continued east past the Lahaina pali section to Maalaea then returned, clearing the highway from Maalaea to the Lahaina pali section. Tokunaga and a crew then proceeded to the culvert at Olowalu, beginning work there at approximately 7:30 a. m.

The Rodrigues' home was flooded to a height of six inches, the water causing extensive damage to the house and furnishings. Mr. Rodrigues reported that he was 'heartbroken' and 'couldn't stand to look at it' and Mrs. Rodrigues testified that she was 'shocked' and cried because they had waited fifteen years to build their own home.

In addition to other repairs they made on their home, the Rodrigueses spent approximately six weeks scraping damaged rubber carpets off the floor of the house with razor blades. The Rodrigueses took out a loan to pay for repairs and incurred interest charges on the loan as an additional expense.

The trial court found that the Rodrigues' lot occupied the highest ground in the tier of lots, that the floor of their house was two and a half feet higher than the top of the culvert, that the culvert was adequate to drain the area, and that flooding of the Rodrigues' home could have been prevented if 'the State * * * had men dig the culvert our whenever it became blocked by sand' or 'if Tokunaga had proceeded directly to Olowalu after he had been called * * * rather than spending four hours clearing the road.'

Judgment amounted to $10,342.73 in the aggregate and consisted of $5,535.04 for repairs, labor, and loss of occupancy for four months, $2,307.69 for interest charges The State raises numerous points on appeal. They may be consolidated into four issues: (1) whether the maintenance of a culvert is a discretionary function within the exception stated in the State Tort Liability Act; ¹ (2) whether the State, treated as a private individual under like circumstances, ² owed a duty of due care to the Rodrigueses in the maintenance of its culvert; (3) whether the prohibition against the award of interest 'prior to judgment' in HRS § 662-2 includes interest charges on the loan incurred by the Rodrigueses, and (4) whether the award for 'mental anguish and suffering, inconvenience, disruption of home and family life, past and future, etc.' was proper.

on the loan taken out by the Rodrigueses for the cost of repairs, and $2,500.00 for 'mental anguish and suffering, inconvenience, disruption of home and family life, past and future, etc.'

I.

We have recently adopted the view that the discretionary function exception does not apply to operational level decisions which involve routine everyday matters not requiring evaluation of broad policy factors. Rogers v. State, 51 Haw. 293, 459 P.2d 378 (1969). From the record, it is clear that the maintenance of highway culverts is an everyday governmental operation undertaken by the State to protect its highways from drainage waters.

The State's sole reliance on Sisley and Shank v. United States, 202 F.Supp. 273 (D.Alaska 1962) for the proposition that maintenance of a culvert is within the scope of the discretionary...