Torts and Negligence Flashcards

A plaintiff is injured in a car accident in Honolulu and suffers $100,000 in damages. A jury determines that the plaintiff was 50% at fault and the defendant was 50% at fault. Under Hawaii's negligence law, how much can the plaintiff recover from the defendant?

Answer: C) $50,000, as damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Hawaii follows a modified comparative negligence rule, specifically the '51% rule.' This means a plaintiff can recover damages as long as their negligence is not greater than the defendant's (or the aggregate of all defendants'). Since the plaintiff's fault (50%) is not greater than the defendant's fault (50%), the plaintiff can recover, but their damages will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Therefore, the plaintiff can recover $100,000 - (50% * $100,000) = $50,000.

A tourist is injured when a coconut falls from a tree on a hotel property in Maui. The tourist did not see the coconut fall and there were no eyewitnesses. The hotel had exclusive control over the maintenance of the palm trees on its property. Which legal doctrine would be most helpful for the plaintiff in establishing the hotel's breach of duty?

Answer: B) Res ipsa loquitur

Res ipsa loquitur, which means 'the thing speaks for itself,' is a doctrine that allows an inference of negligence when an accident occurs that would not normally happen without negligence, the object causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm. In this scenario, falling coconuts in a maintained area suggest a lack of reasonable care (negligence), the hotel had exclusive control of the trees, and the tourist was passive. This makes res ipsa loquitur the most applicable doctrine.

Which of the following is NOT an essential element that a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie case of negligence in Hawaii?

Answer: C) The defendant acted with malicious intent.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) Duty, (2) Breach of Duty, (3) Causation (both actual and proximate), and (4) Damages. Malicious intent is characteristic of an intentional tort, not negligence, which is based on a failure to exercise reasonable care, not a desire to cause harm.

A tenant in a Honolulu apartment building is repeatedly harassed by a neighbor in the common areas. The tenant sends multiple written complaints to the landlord about the neighbor's threatening behavior. The landlord takes no action. Subsequently, the neighbor assaults the tenant in the building's laundry room, causing serious injury. What is the landlord's most likely liability to the injured tenant?

Answer: C) Liable in negligence, for breaching the duty to maintain safe common areas after being put on notice of a specific threat.

In Hawaii, as in many jurisdictions, landlords have a duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition. This duty can extend to protecting tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, including other tenants, especially when the landlord has notice of a specific danger. By ignoring the tenant's repeated written complaints, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable risk, thus breaching their duty of care.

A pedestrian is struck by a car in Hilo on May 1, 2023. The pedestrian suffers a broken leg and incurs significant medical bills. According to the Hawaii statute of limitations for personal injury claims, what is the latest date the pedestrian can file a lawsuit against the driver?

Answer: B) May 1, 2025

Under Hawaii law, the general statute of limitations for personal injury actions, including those arising from negligence, is two years from the date the injury occurred. Therefore, the pedestrian must file the lawsuit on or before May 1, 2025. There are some exceptions, such as for medical malpractice or claims involving minors, but the general rule for a standard negligence case is two years.

A bar in Waikiki serves alcohol to a person who is already visibly intoxicated. The intoxicated person then drives away from the bar and causes an accident that injures a third party. Under Hawaii's dram shop liability principles, is the bar potentially liable for the third party's injuries?

Answer: A) Yes, because Hawaii's common law recognizes dram shop liability for commercial vendors who serve visibly intoxicated patrons who then harm others.

While Hawaii does not have a specific 'Dram Shop Act' statute creating civil liability, the Hawaii Supreme Court established common law dram shop liability in the case of Ono v. Applegate. This principle holds that a commercial seller of alcohol (like a bar) can be held liable for injuries caused to a third party by a patron if the establishment served the patron while they were visibly intoxicated.