Case Title: Cho v. State. ICA s.d.o., filed 04/18/2007 [pdf], 113 Haw. 507. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/07/2007 [pdf].

Citation: 115 Haw. 373

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAWLIBRARY.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***

in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

000

 

 

CALVIN K. CHO, HEE CHO, DAVID CHO, TENNY CHO,

KAREN
Ho, and SHARON’ CHO,

Petiticners/Plaintiffe-Appellants,
ve.

STATE OF HAWAT'Z, Respondent /Defendant -Appel1/

 

 

No. 27458

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPI
(crv. NO. 97-2939)

3

gas

    

avai 4096
ni AE ao
"yaviT YON

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

 

MOON, C.dJ., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, AND ACOBA, Od. ,
AND CIRCUIT JUDGE TOWN, IN PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
on Septenber 7, 2007, this court accepted a tinely
application for writ of certiorari, filed by petitioners/
plaintiffe-eppellants Calvin K. Cho (Calvin), Hee cho (Hee),
pavid cho (Pavid), Tenny Cho (Tenny), Karen Cho (Karen), and

sharon Cho (Sharon) [hereinafter, collectively, the Chos] on

August 6, 2007. The Chos requested that this court review the
May @, 2007 judgrent of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA),
entered pursuant to its April 18, 2007 summary disposition order.

‘Therein, the ICA generally “affirned" the Circuit Court of the

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

August 25, 2005 first amended judgment, finding

 

First Circuit’
in favor of reepondent/defendant-appellee State of Hawai'i (the

State) ae to all counts in the Chos’ conplaint.?

 

Briefly stated, the complaint in this case was filed by
calvin, a school custodian, and his family, i.e., hie wife, Hee,
their two sons, David and Tenny, and their twin daughters, Karen
and Sharon. The Chos sought damages for injuries allegedly
caused by long-term exposure to lead, mercury, and arsenic during
their ten-year occupancy of a governnent-leased cottage on the
grounds of Washington Intermediate School, now known as
Washington Middle School, located in Honolulu, Hawai'i. The
complaint alleged negligence and breach of warranty of
habitability of leased premises [hereinafter, breach of varranty]
against the State. The central issue -- challenged by the Chos
both on direct appeal and on application -- involves the trial

court's authority to reconsider a discovery sanctions order three

 

+ plese otherwise stated, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presided
over the underlying proceedings. Further, the phrase “trial court’ in thie
pesorandun opinion specifically refers to Judge Hite.

+ paehough de ultimately agreed with the trial court's finding in favor
of the State, the 1cA vacated the suguet 25, 2008 firee amended Judanent and
Feeanded the coe to the trial court for, inter alia, reentry of jusgnent in
Hover of the State on all counts in the Complaint. the ICA cbeerved that che
August 25, 2005 first enended judguent referred to the Chos’ comp

tedcend aiendea complaint’ shen, in fact, the chos filed only one complaint.
Sumary Disposition Order (S00) at 21. Hlowever, the ICA concluded that such
ustake did not render the August 25, 2008 first anended Juégnent non-
Sppealable. £00 at 11. The ica relied upon (2)

fiitoter Vehicles, 99 7.24 326 (Or. Ct. App. 2004), aff"d, 120 F.3d 29 (Or

Gt. App. 2005), for the proposition that a “clerical mistake did not prevent
Seatry’ of judgnent under pertinent statutes and thus judgrent was enforceable
and appeslable® and (2) Haval'd Rules of Civil Procedures (HRCP) Rule 60(a)
(2007), which authorizes the exial court to correct clerical errors. S00 at
preety}

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

——

years after it was isaued by the trial court. The sanctions
order was imposed as a result of the State's failure to produce a
fifty-five gallon drum, which contained debris collected from the
now-denolished cottage, that wae eventually shipped to a toxic
dunp eite in Utah, The trial court initially sanctioned the
State by barring it from contesting the contamination of the
cottage. Three years later, the trial court, in granting the
State's notion for reconsideration, essentially vacated its
initial sanctions order and, instead, barred the State from
introducing evidence of any tests it had perforned on the debris
contained in the drum, After a jury-waived trial, the trial
court concluded that the Chos “failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that [the State] was negligent and/or any such
negligence was a legal cause of [their] injur[ies]." The trial
court further concluded that the Ches failed to prove their
breach of warranty claim.

In their application, the Chos maintain that the Ica
gravely erred when it affirmed the trial court’s reconsideration
of the initial sanctions order inasmuch as: (1) the tine to file
a notion for reconsideration under HRCP Rule 60(b) (2007), quoted

nfra, had passed; and (2) the State merely reargued iss

 

already raised and heard by the trial court. The Chos also

contend that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the trial court’

 

Aismissal of their claims because the trial court failed to

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

address all of the elenente of their negligence and breach of
warranty clains.

Although we believe that the ICA erronecusly failed to
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in
reconsidering ite initial sanctions order, we nevertheless affirm
the ICA’s May 8, 2007 judgment on appeal based upon the reasone

discussed below.

A. Factual
Since 1975, Calvin worked as a custodian for the state
Department of Education at Kalihi Uka Elementary School. In
1985, Calvin became the head custodian at Mashington Intermediate
School (the school). From April 1965 to the end of September
1995, the Chos lived in and rented -- from the state for $50 per
month -- a two-bedroom cottage (the cottage) located on the
school grounds that was made available for the school’s head

custodian.?

> when the Chos soved into the cottage in April 1985, Calvin was fifty-

cone yeare old; Hee wae fifty; David wae twenty-one; Tensy wae fifteen; and
Karen and Sharon were thirteen.

 

 
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

‘The cottage wae built around 1920 and was located on
property owned by the Boys and Girls Club of Hawai‘, which it

leased to the Stat

 

According to the Chos,*

 

when they soved into the cottage, st was dirty and had
Uesuites. “The paint wae peeling, the ficore were stained,
and the indove were painted over, The Chos patched the
fCinite Gensge, palaced the interior and exterior with paint
Supplied by the {elchool, cleaned the floors, and scraped
the windows.

 

 

spo at 2.
In December 1989 (nearly four and a half years after

the Chos moved inte the cottage),

the state hired private architect Gerald Inouye to inspect
the condition of all ite custodial cottages. Inouye
Seported that the [cloteage vas well-cared for and "very
clean,” despite “cone termite The root was
coneldered “very old" and bad “leaks,” but no repaire wert
Sone by the State becsure “a nev root would have cost nor’
then §3,000, exceeding svailable funds,” and “exceeded the
Allowable repair sncunt per Depertnent of Education policy
Of twice the annual rent{(.]*

 

   

   

 

 

Id. (original brackets omitted). However, as a result of
calvin's subsequent requests for repairs, the State had its
facilities maintenance enployees inspect the cottage exterior to
determine the economic feasibility of maintaining and repairing
the cottage. During this inspection, which occurred on May 12,
1995,

Steven Nong, a facilitses maintenance employee of the
Departnent of accounting and Ceneral Services (GAGS), tested
the exterior of the (clettage for lead paint. the strip
test for lesd peint was positive. The State determined that
fepaix and saintenance costs wosid not be economically

 

4 the majority of the factual and procedural background are taken from
che Icke susmaty disposition order (S00), uhick, in turn, relied upon the
Erlal court's Findings of fact. (POFs) and ‘Conclusions of Law (COLs). The
facts Go not appear to be in dispute. indeed, the Chos did not challenge on
appeal before the ICA ~- nor do they challenge on spplication to this court —~
ahy of the erial court's Fors.

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

 

Feasible end decided to demolish the [elottage. calvin vas
notified by letter{, dated July 24, 1995,] that the rental,
agrecrent for the [clottage would not be renewed and that
the Chols) mist vacate by the end of August 1958." The
letter did not disclose the results of the strip test for
lead. The Choe asked for more time to nove for stated
fizsncial reasons. The State gave the Choe until Septerber
30, 1998 to vacate. "The Chos vacated on of about Septenber
30; 1995 snd soved into a hone they owned in Kapolei [4]
‘The {cottage vas denolished on oF about Jeruary 26,
isse.14)

Id, at 3-4,
on or about April 25, 1996 (three months after the

 

 

 

demolition of the cottage),

Calvin called the state inspector, who inforned Calvin that
the May 1995 strip test for lead sae poeitive, Calvin
Innediacely sought and obtained the report and began his ow
Suvestigation. In carly July of 1596, Calvin returned to
the tite of the {demolished clottage to collect samples of
nips, and water. It ie unknown whether the
id paint chips vere from the interior of the
[elottsge. ‘Calvin tock the eanplee he collected to inalabl,
a toxicolegy laboratory," . = for testing. the inalab
fest of the paint chipe indicated a high level of lead and a
very low level of sereury. The Inalab test of the water
Undleated low and unremarkable levels of lead and detected
no rereury.

In July 1996, when their blood, hair, and urine teste
Andicated the presence of lead, mereury, and arsenic 4m
their bodies, the Chos underwent chelation therapy to renove
the metals ffom their bodies. At various tines #fom 1596
Enrough 2002, cach of the Choe submitted nusercus tamples of
their blood, ‘heir, and urine for laboratory teste to
Getermine lead, arsenic, and mercury content, iecesced
pore fully infzal-

 

    

 

 

+ puring the tine they had rented the cottage, Calvin and Hee acquired
two houses -- ene in Kepole! and ancther on Vaicnea Street, -- both of which
they Jesced to tenante. The record also reflects that the Chos sold one of
thelr hovses in order to pay for the instant lawsuit. As Celvin testified, “T
had to sell one house . .'. for the medical expenses ang court expenses. nd
so out of selling of the house, I's using that money for the court and the
eaiea expences

 

 

 

 

4 ‘the denolition was done by a company hized by the Boye and Girls Club
of Havai'l with the State's permission.

 

> analab provided “services primarily in the fields of forensic
toxicology, Basic Iaboratory services, industrial hygiene, end environmental
service

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

on Octcber 4, 2996, the state had Brewer Environmental
services{, an independent testing company, (Brewer)] collect
shoo’, paint chips|,) snd soil camples from the site of the
Genolitned [clottage » - «+ Teste of the (vood, paint
chips,
Ye
Eorser site of the (clottage were then collected in = drum
and shipped to a toxic dump site in Grassy Mountain, Utah

Ida at 4-5.
B. Procedural History

1. ‘The Complaint and the Orders Compelling Discovery

 

 

soil samples] chewed elevated but not hazardous
Of lead. “Fifty-five gallons of debris from the

 

on May 12, 1997, the Chos, proceeding pro se,"

£510@ a complaint alleging that{,) “during the tine they
rerided in the {cottagel, the chos were poisoned by lead and
uercury through exposure’ to paint and other sources in the
Telotteger and vere seeking general and special dansges
caused them (sic) by the state's (1) negligence and (2)
Breach of warranty (0)

 

 

 

 

S00 at 5 (original brackets omitted). As previously stated, in
early July 1996 (after the January 18, 1996 demolition of the
cottage), Inalab, at Calvin’s request, tested paint chips and
water taken from the debris of the demolished cottage, which
tests showed a low and unremarkable level of lead and no mercury
in the water samples. the teste also revealed a high level of
lead and a very low level of mercury in the paint chip samples.
on June 2, 1997, three weeks after the filing of the instant
complaint, Inalab tested water and paint chip samples for
arsenic, which were negative

on March 4, 1999, the chos requested production of the
“fifty-five gallon drum containing wood debris left from the

demolition of the [cottage] . . . , which Brewer . . . collected,

 

4 shortly after the £i2ing of the complaint, the Choe retained counsel.

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

tested, and removed at [the State's] instruction[,]" for testing
purposes. On July 14, 1999, the State filed a “notion to quash”

the request, arguing that:

‘The requested fifty-five gation drum is buried in a tanéfi21
located [ia] Grassy Mountain, Utah. The drum vas placed in

 

 

the Utah landfill at the administrative convenience of
Brever. .- , and sot at the direction of the State.
Further) ihe fequested item ie not with: snes:
vont rel of the grate [and. there! pest of retrieve
ould be Si5,.0001.

(Emphasis added.) After a hearing, on Septenber 20, 1999, the
circuit court, the Honorable Gail C. Nakatani presiding, entered
its written order, denying the state’s sotion [hereinafter, the

aiscovery order]. specifically, the discovery order stated that:

‘THE COURT... PENDS that dt de catiefieg that the
that the. [c]otes

    

particularly evident by the exters
Ebut may 12, 1598." Instead of
Feconvended ty Dr. (Ajit) Arora, ("] the State alloved the
[elottage to be denolished and removed to a Local lendfiil
in Pebrasry 2996, Subsequently, om October 25, 2996[,]
Hiety-five gallon érum of {clottage debris vas collected and
Eventually shipped to Grassy Mountain, Utah.

IE 18 FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED' AND DECREED that the
[state] shall be required to produce the fifty-five gallon
drum at ite ow expense to (the Chos] in Hawai'i for testing

purpe!

 

 

 

+ ns dlecueted infra, Dr. Arora conducted an independent evaluation of
celvin in connection with he workers’ cowpeneatéon claim for chemical
Sensitivity. in hie Novenber 22, 1995 report. (two monthe after the Cho
Yacated the cottage), Dr. Arora stated in relevant part that:

 

   

(tlhe most inportant aspect of Mr. Cho's care at the present

tine chould be addressing his nercury poisoning,
Tnvestigating hs hone eavirennent, and getting the Health
Departuent involved in figuring out who ele is being
exposed to sercury in hie hone environment and how. Once
the mercury poisoning has been treated and his blood le
brought below 10 micrograms per iter, one would have t
give a(t] least a year's worth of tine before one could
Gctermine how much improvenent has ocurred after treatrent
of mercury poisoning.

 

 

 

 
 

*** FORPUBLICATION *
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

—_——

‘Thereafter, on September 28, 1999, the State moved for
reconsideration of the discovery order, pursuant to ERCP Rule
60(b) (2) and (6) (governing relief from judgment, order, or

proceeding for euch reasons as “mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

 

or excusable neglect"). ‘The State essentially argued that it did
not have knowledge that the cottage could be a cause and source
of toxic exposure to the Chos when the fifty-gallon drum wae
shipped to Utah. To the contzary, the Chos responded that:

‘The State has taken the position that the drum of
Construction debris was not toxic, yet, instead of nerely
Storing it at a state facility, St went to the trouble of
Shipping the denrie sll the way to Grassy Mountain, Utah
a federally licensed toxic facility. There the drum was
foried in landfill under tone of coil and asbestos
Containing tage and contaizers[.J .. . Upon further
Ioguley te eanegenent of the Grassy Mountain Facility in
bse, [the Choa)’ attorney was adviced .. . that the drum
Gould be recovered but it vould cost. approximately
$350,000.00 [=~ ae opposed to $15, 000-00 initially stated
yitherseate'in ste setion to quash ==} in expense to do

 

 

 

 

 

on March 3, 2000, Judge Nakatani denied the motion, finding that

the state

sought relief pursuant to HRCP [Rule] 60; however, (the
State] failed to demonstrate "mistake, inadvertence,

‘or excusable neglect." In support of the motion,
the state] provided three stfidavits[) which could have
been provided with ite original motion and repeated the sane
arguments.

 

    

‘The state did not produce the fifty-five gallon drum.

 

the state provided affidavite of: (1) Leslie K. L. Au, a
toxicologiet, which attested that = [l}ead paint on ones in not toxic to
persons six yeare and cléer without active ingestion of quantities of large
Efeinle flaxee of paint’y (2) Dr. Arora, who stated that, in his Novenber 22,
see report. (ace susra note 9), he “did not intend that the state or any other
HElic Agency ehould conduct an investigation of the exterior or interior
Bult of the cottage, ef any wood material ceed in the construction of the
‘ded in by Calvite(;] and. (3) Kevin Mizuno, who tested the soil and
ae the request of Brewer.

     

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

The orders Imposing Discovery Sanctions

 

on Septenber 1, 2000, the Chos moved for sanctions

nections for failure to

 

under HRCP Rule 37(b) (2007) (governing
make discovery), requesting either an entzy of a default judgnent
or a sanction barring the State from contesting the contamination
of the cottage, pursuant to Hong v, Citv & County of Honolulu, 66
Haw. 369, 665 P.24 187 (1963). Responding that retrieval would
now cost $1 million, the State alternatively suggested that the
trial court follow the Hong court by ordering that

tthe State will be estopped from contesting the presence of
Yeed, sercury or arsenic in the vood chips of the denoliched
eottige, but leaving it to (the Choe) to meet thelr burde
Of proof on these “facte" by competent evidence

 

   

on Decenber 22, 2000, the trial court entered an order, granting
in part and denying in part the Chos’ motion (hereinafter, the
initial sanctions order]. The initial sanctions order
specifically stated that:
A, Kith respect to [the chos’] request for default
Judgnent, ‘the request is denied.
B. With respect to [the Cho

Uisposing eanctions
granted as follows:

 
   
 

 

2. (Te State) vas negligent in that ie
kad a custodian [e]ottage which contained toxic
Chemicals, nanely lead, sercury and
sreenie ‘Erén April 1985 to septenber 1995.

2. (The state) ie estopped from claining
chat the custodian lelottage {aié not) contaia(]
toxic chenicale, nately, lead, mercury and
areenie, which were the byproducts of cther
Substances which were the cause of the toxic
Ghenicale in the custodian {clottage from April
1985 to Septesber 1955.

3. (the State) ie estopped from denying
that the ches have actually been exposed to. 8
dceage within the cstablicned range for vnich
there {¢ an establighed causal relationship
Between exposure to the texine(,] namely lead,

 

 

 

 

-10-
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION *
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

—_—_—

 

mercury snd arene, and the occurrence of
Gisesee from april 1985 to Septenber 1995.

‘4. the State shall not be estopped from
accerting ite clains as to proximate cous
Conparative negligence, sssunption of risk or
Sy cther affirmative defenses against any other
party in this action.

 

 

 

In other words, the initial sanctions order appears to have
resolved thé duty and breach of duty elenents of negligence” in
favor of the Chos, i.e., finding that the State was negligent.

As the Ches cbserved, trial wae, therefore, to be limited to the

remaining two negligence elements -- causation and damage:

 

However,

ola December 13, 2002, the state di
president /lead toxicologiat Mark Hot
Ezsadone stated in bie deposition that the laboratory teste
conducted ca the .. « samples [that Calvin collected)
Showed sonchasardous levels of lead and “ineignificant
Jevele of arsenic and sercury."

 

 

on December 32, 2002, [two years after the initial
wnetione order,] the State flied a (tnon-hearing motic
for {x]econsideration(, citing HNCP) Rule 60[, discussed
[nica]. Eleven monthe Jater, on Nevenber 5, 2003, without a
Abii. tthe tetal coure) entered an order granting In part
and denying in part the state's [motion for reconsideration
(ene anended eanctions order)], implicitly vacating t

[inielal eJanceions (elrder, ahd stating that:

 

 

   

(2) The (trial clourt . . . imposes the
lege severe sanctions which axe cet fort!
the) seate’e supporting sencrandon at page 22,
se follows: —[DJuring the trial[,] the State is
Precluded from using Brewer Pindings and Report;
i) only the inalab findinge are cdmissibiey
state]. (3) at trial{,] the inference will be
cade that, if (ene fifty-five gallon drum vae)
Tested, the results would have been sinilar to
Eanpies that the chos abeained and that were
tested by Inalab.

  

 

qe de vell-eatabliched that, in order for a plaintiff to prevail on
a negligence claim, the plaintif® ie required to prove ail four of the
Secefeesy elenente of negligence: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty: (3)
eetetlox, and (4) demoges. Takavana v. Kaiser Found, Hoep,, 62 Havai'i 486,
GSeras, 92s pead 903, 915-6 (1996) (eitation omitted).

  

ae
   

FOR PUBLICATION **
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

on January 3, 2004, pursvant to ERCP Rule 68 (2007)
(entitled, “offer of eettlenent or judgeent,*)) and Haval'd
Rules of Evidence, Rule 408, the state served on cach of the
Choe « 200 per pereon offer of eettlenent. All of the Cho
rejected the offer.

 

    

spo at @ (original brackets omitted).
3. The Trial Proceedings

A jury-waived trial conmenced on February 17, 2004 and
ended on March 5, 2004. As discussed in more detail in the
Discussion section, infra, nuverous witnesses testified on behalf
of the Chos, including, inter alia, medical experts, as well as
each member of the Cho family, i.e., Calvin, Hee, David, Tenny,
Karen, and Sharon. The State also presented their own medical
expert witnesses.

on the last day of the trial, March $, 2004, the trial
court ordered the trial bifurcated, informing the parties that it
would first rule solely on liability and causation, and reopen
for evidence of darages if the Chos prevailed. on April 5, 2005,

the trial court i

 

ed its FOPs and COLs, finding in favor of the
state. Specifically, the trial court found that:

59. there {8 no credible evidence of [the Choe]
texle exposure to arsenic, lead or mercury from [the
State) ’e cottage.

60." There {e no credible evidence of sny physical or
peychological injury to any of the [ches] as a result of
Eisenic, lead or mercury from [the State] 's cottage.

i, There Is no credible evidence of economic injury
go any of the [chos) se result of arsenic, lesd oF mercury
fom {the State]'s cottage.

 

Consequently, the trial court concluded that:

1. [the Choe} have failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that [the State] was negligent snd/or that
any such negligence was a legal cause of injury to any
Inenber of the chos) -

oa
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

[the chos] failed to prove their claits of breach

    

of warranty of Hsbitability |... as set forth in Lenle wv
Exgeden, $1 Kaw. [4]26{, 4€2°P.24 470] (1369) [4] or

otherwise.
3. {The Chee] failed to prove any and all of their

elaine by a prepender

Judgment etall enter in favor of the [state] ané against the

{chee}.

 

 

‘The trial court entered judgment for the State on June
27, 2005, Thereafter, the Chos filed a notice of appeal on
August 25, 2005. Two days later, on August 25, 2005, the trial
court iesued its firet amended judgment.

4 the Lemig court recognized the application of the theory of inplied
warranty of babltebility to residential lessee, explaining that:

tt has cone to be recognized that ordinarily the
lessee doce not have ae mich knowledge of the condition of
Dreniece se the lessor. Duilding code requirenente and
Vlovstions aze know or made known to the lesor, not the
Tie is na better position to know of latent

Structural and otherwise, ina building which might
to unnoticed by a lescee who rarely has sufficient knowledge
of expertise £6 see oF discover thi

 

 

 

 

   

     

Td, at 432-33, 462 7.26 at 474 (citation omitted) (format altered). The Lene.
doiee sizther’ cbeerved that, “"[{]n considering the sateriality of an allegea
Breach, both the seriousness of the cleined defect and the length of tine for
Which dt persiete are relevant factore. Each case suet turn on ite own
facto." Id at 436, 462 P.2d at 476

 

ne the Tea noted:

[t]he appeal ie not tinely if applied to the June 27, 2005
fosgneatl, fee Heval't mules of Appellate Procedure ‘(HRAP)
fale 4 (a) (2). (2009) (ten a civil appeal de permitted by
Jaw, the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 cays
after entry of the Judgrent or appealable crder.")
Hlonever, since the June 27, 2005 judgeent did not identity
the claim for which it wae entered, 1€ ie not an appealable
fucguent under [Havai'l Reviced statutes (Hs)] § 641-1 (8)
(3993), [RCP Rule] 58[,] and the holding in Jenking va
gages fa leming &/ieiahe, 76 Hawaii 128, 119, 668
P.2a i334, 2538 (1584).

 

 

 

po at 12 25.

% the Choa’ August 22, 2005 notice of appeal ie 2 tinely appeal from
the august 25, 2008 firet ancnded sudgrent. fee HRAP Rule 4(a) (2) (2007) (cxf
s'Sotice cf agpeal se filed after snnouncevent of o decision but before entry
Sethe jusguent or order, uch notice stall be considered as filed innediately

(continued. --)

 

 

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Appeal Eefore the ICA

on their di

 

ct appeal, the Chos contended that the
trial court: (2) lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the initial
sanctions order pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b) when, inter alia, the
time period to bring such motion had passed and the State offered
no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised

previously; and (2) failed to make findings regarding all of the

 

 

elements of negligence and breach of warranty claims." On April

18, 2007, the ICA issued ite Sb, cesentially affirming the trial

court's conclusions, discussed more fully infra. SDO at 13-14,
on May 8, 2007, the ICA entered its judgment on appeal.

‘The Chos timely filed their application on August 6, 2007."

 

4(. continued)
after the tine the judgrent or order becones final for the purpose of
appeal.*)-

™ the Chos also disputed the trial court
arount of $59,402.56 to the State. However, thi
the Choe of

Sehe record
$59; 4021-56)
of the aura. 5 constquentiy,
Erial court for an itemization of the co
the state. 650 at 16.

      
   
 

it declined to cecige the valiaity
1e ICA ressnded this secue to the
‘the chos were ordered to reinburse

 

   

 

 

 

on August 21, 2007, the state filed ite response to the Choe!
application. erein, the State argues, inter alia, that the Chos
application is untinely incamich an the Joh's 60 tan filed en 99f42 28, 2007.
Eke Rote 0:1 200") provides dp'televane part chat "fnlo tater then 96 aye
After the #iiog of the [ICA's ercany. party ay appa
in testing to the. suprene court fora wilt of certicrari.*” (anguatie nese)
As previously indicated, the 1cx'a Sadgvent was filed on Nay €,"2007 and the
Shoe filed their application on Auguste, 1007 ~~ the ninccleth cay.

 

      

   

 

 

o14-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

TT, STANDARDS OF REVIEW

AO cert:

This court reviews the deciaion of the ICA for
(1) grave errors of law or of fact or (2) cbvicus inconsistencies
in the decision of the ICA with that of the suprene court,
federal decisions, or its own decisions. IRS § 602-59(b) (Supp.
2006).
B. son sderatior

othe trial court’ ruling on a motion for

reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion

 

standard." Ass’ partment Owners ea Blua v. Waile
Resort Co., 100 Hawai'i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002)

(citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial
court has “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded
rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial
detrinent of a party litigant." Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki
Reachconber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (2992)
(citation omitted) .
TIT. DISCUSSION

on application, the Chos argue that the ICA committed
grave error: (2) when it affirmed the trial court’s decision to
set aside the initial sanctions order and impose a lesser
sanction against the State; and, (2) when it affirmed the trial

court's diemieeal of the Chos’ negligence and breach of warranty

-15-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

clains without addressing all of the elements of those clains.
We address each contention in turn.

A 4a] Court's Reconsideral “

order
As previously stated, the trial court issued the
initial sanctions order on Decenber 22, 2000. Two years later,
on Decenber 31, 2002, the State filed its motion for

reconsideration, citing HRCP Rule 60. Eleven months later, the

 

trial court granted the State’s notion, issuing an anended
sanctions order on Noverber 5, 2003 (nearly three years after the
initial sanctions order). On appeal, the Chos challenged the
trial court’s authority te reconsider ite initial sanctione
order. Specifically, the ches argued that the trial court erred

An reconeidering its initial sanctions order because: (1) the

 

time limitation to bring a motion for reconsideration under HRCP

sed, and, thus, the trial court was without

 

Rule 60(b) had p:

 

Jurisdiction; and (2) the State failed to adduce evidence that
the natters raised in ite motion for reconsideration could not
have been raised in the earlier proceeding. However, the ICA, in
its S00, addressed only the first issue and made no nention of
the latter. Specifically, the ICA -- without analysis --
sunmarily concluded that the trial court did not lack
jurisdiction to enter its anended sanctions order, thereby

replacing its initial sanctions order. D0 at 13. The Chos

n16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

raise the identical icoues in their application, which are

addressed below.

1

Whether the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to
Reconsider the Initial Sanctions Order

 

‘The Chos contend that the trial court erred in

considering and granting the State’s motion for reconsideration

and that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the trial court's

decision to do so. Specifically, the Chos argue that:

First, the state's notion cited “Rule 60,* but 44 not
Feference any section of the rule or authority interpreting
ie. See Ditto v, Mecurdy, 103 Hawas't 183, 80 P.3d 374
(Zi03) ("bitte completely faile to argue or explain how any
of the provisicns of HRCP Rule 60(b) are inplicsted.-)~
Moreover, "Rule €0(b) tpplies to notions seeking to amend
final orders in the nature of Jedgrente, Tratevings Hotel
vi Cochran, 8 Haw, App. 256, 262, 789 P24 60. (1990), and
helther Judge Nakatant'e. (@iscovery order] nor Judge’ Hifo's
[initial esnctions order) were final sussnenta or order

Second, eesuming RCP Rule 60(b) applies, the seat
notion vas Bleed on mistake, new evidence and fraud, and
therefore “shall be made. . - not nore than one year after
the juaguent, order OF pro Cecding vas entered or taken.”
RCP Rule €0(b) (.1

“Third, aesuming Rule 60(b)‘s time Limitations did not
apply, this motion for reconsideration “failed to séeuce
evidence that such satters could not have been rained during
the earlier hearing.” gank of Haveli v.-Kuninote, 52
Hawai 427, 438, 964 P.2d 1253 (app. 2997)

 

 

 

 

    
   

 

HRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that:

Op motion and upon auch terns as are just, the court
say relieve a party oF a party's legal representative from a.
ss for the following
(G) alstake, inadvertence, surprise, or excveable
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due
Giigence coula not have been discovered in tine to sove for
2 nev trial under Rule £9(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore
Geneminated intrinsic oF extrinese), mierepresentation, oF
(4) the Judgment is
Void; (5) the Judgnent hae been catiafied, relesced, oF
Glecharsed, or # prior judgeent opon which Se 1s faced has
been reverted or cthervice vacated, or it ie no longer
equitable that the judgrent should have proopective
ication; or (6) sny cther reason justifying relief from
the operaticn of the Juégnent. The notion chall be rade
within a ressonable tine, and for reasons (1), (2), snd (3)
dot sore than one year after the judgrent, order, Or
proceeding was entered or taken.

 

 

 

 

 

-17-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(emphasis added.) This court has noted that the ERCP do

 

ation, Cf, HRAP Fule 40(a) {(*Motion for
Feconsideration’)]; Havas" Family Court Rules Rule 59(b)
[New erisle, reccneiderstion of snencnent of Sudgrent and
crdere")},, Haval't appellate courts, however, have
Fecognized that a action for reconsideration can be filed
pursuant to HCP Rule 59(e) (notion to alter or anend
Sadguent) ‘or SCP Rule 60° (notion for vellef from judgrent
or oxeer)

Soderlund v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 96 Hawai'i 114, 119 n.7,

26 P.3d 1224, 1219 n.7 (2002) (internal quotation marks and

 

 

 

citation omitted). Nevertheless, the ICA has also observed that
a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to ERCP Rule 60(b), “is
authorized only in situations involving final judgnents.* crow
Prope. Inc, ¥. Fin, Sec, Life Ins,, 6 Haw. App. 105, 112, 712
P.2d 504, 509 (2985); see algo Tradewinds Hotel, Inc. vs
Cochrane, @ Haw. App. 256, 262, 799 P.24 60, 65 (1990) ("Rule

 

60(b) applies to motions seeking to amend final orders in the
nature of judgnents.” (Citation omitted.)). Indeed, by ite
terms, Rule 60(b) only applies to a “final judgment, order, or

proceeding." This court has defined ‘final order* to mean “an

 

order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be

accomplished. Consequently, an order is not final if the rights
of a party involved renain undetermined or if the matter is
retained for further action.* Bocalbos v, Kapsolani Med. ctr.

© Analogously, the Advisory Committee Notes (2946 Anendnent) for URCP
Rule 60's federal counterpart, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule
Colby, explained that “(eb tadition of the qualifying word final’

Sep the character of the judgrents, ordera oF proceedings from which
foie ¢0(b) affords relief." See also stailard v, Consol, aul. nea, 103
Hawai 468, 475, 03 P94 732, 738 (2008), ‘@ (rncb]-are substantially
binilar te the ERCP, we lock ‘to federal case law for guidance.)

 

 

   

wae.
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

—_—_——

fox Wonen & Children, 89 Hawai'i 436, 439, 974 P.2d 1026, 1029

(1999) (inte:

 

1 quotation marke and citations omitted).
Clearly, an order imposing sanctions under HRCP Rule 37 for

failure to comply with a discovery ord

 

as here, is not a final
order. See Cunningham v, Hamilton County, Ohie, 527 U.S. 198,
200 (1999) (holding that an order imposing eancticns ia not a
final decision). Further, a final judgnent or order had not yet
been entered at the time the State filed its motion for

reconsideration. Ae euch, the initial sanctions order wi

 

merely
interlocutory. Accordingly, relief pureuant to NRCP Rule 60(b)
was not available in relation to the aforenentioned sanctions
order. see alse Advisory Conmittee Notes (1946 Amendment) to the
FRCP Rule 60(b) (observing that “interlocutory judgments are not
brought within the restrictions of the rule, but rather they are
lefe subject to the conplete power of the court rendering them to
afford such relief from them as justice requires").

Moreover, as the State pointed out in its answering

brief:

se fst sz py te ni pg
Tie regia Jeary dal gate
oo eee

BLLELE Sie eile shetty
ipahand' did cieataie 2 imeieas
cision Gr eaann an ER

 

  

 

 

n39-
 

FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

We agree with the State to the extent that the trial court has

inherent power to reconsider interlocutory order:

 

See, 2.c4,
Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc,, 936 F.2d
1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) ("An interlocutory order is subject to
reconsideration at any tine prior to the entry of a final
judgnent."); Peterson v, Lindner, 765 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir.
1985) (notions for reconsideration of interlocutory order cannot
be properly characterized ae a motion under FRCP Rule 60(b)
“[elather, the motion must be considered to be directed to the
court's inherent power to modify or rescind interlocutory orders
prior to final judsnent*) (citation omitted). “Of course, if the
order [is] interlocutory, [the trial court] hals] the power to
reconsider it at any time before final judgment." Id, (citation
omitted). As another court stated:

Rule 60(b)"s primary purpose is to
Of a closed case or a final order;
Dlvays bas the power to modify earlier ordera in a pending

‘esehout relying upon Rele 60(b)- And, it is well
tablished that a district court has the inherent pover to
yeconsider interlocutory orders and reopen any part of &
fare before entry of final judgeent. Woreover, thie
\othority ie not predicated on any federal rule, But
enanates from the isherent power of the court. ‘Not only is
svsotion to reconsider an allowable method of reviewing @
prior order, it is the ost appropriate and advantageous
fethod of |

 

      

 

 

king relief from an interlocutory order for
party to pursue.

     

 

Fisher v. Nat'l RR. Pascencer Corp,, 152 F.R.D. 145, 149 (S.D.
Ind. 1993) (internal quotation marks, citations, and original
brackets omitted) (emphases in original); see also Greene v

fe Ins. Co, of am, 764 F.2d 19, 22 (ist Cir. 1985);

cf. also BRCP Rule $4(b) (2007) (providing that interlocutory

-20-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

oréers that resolve fewer than all clains are ‘subject to
revision at any tine before the entry of judgment adjudicating
all the clains and the rights and liabilities of all the
parties"). Stated differently, the trial court possesses the
inherent power to reconsider ite initial sanctions order at any
time prior to the entry of final judgment. Accordingly, the ICA
correctly concluded that the trial court had juriediction to
reconsider ite initial sanctions order.

2. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in
Reconsidering the Initial Sanctions Order

The Chos maintain that the trial court erred in
reconsidering the initial eancticne order because the ‘motion for
reconsideration failed to adduce evidence that such matters could
not have been raised during the earlier hearing." (Internal
quotation marke, citation, and original bracket omitted.) As
previously stated, the 1CA’s S00 was eilent with respect to thie

i

 

It ie well-recognized that the trial court’s inherent

euch as the initial

 

power to reconsider interlocutory order:
sanctions order, at any tine before final judgnent 1s not without
restrictions. Althcugh the power of reconsideration is committed
to the sound discretion of the trial court, Ass'n of Apartment

owne: wi ua, 100 Hawai'i at 110, $8 P.3d at 621, @

 

motion for reconsideration is limited in scop

-2a-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

[t]he purpose of a notion for reconsideration is to allow
the parties to present new evidence and/or argunente that
coula not Have been presented during the earlier adjudicated
Setion. Reconelderation Je not a device to relitigate old
matters or to raise argusente or evidence that could and
should have been brought during the earlier proceedin

Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai'i 50s, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000)

internal quotation marks, citations, and

   

(original bracket

 

footnote omitted) .

Preliminarily, we reiterate that, in its memorandum in
opposition to the Chos’ motion for sanctions, the State argued

that the fifty-five gallon drum

 

Ae not within the care, custody or contro} of the statel
and ite retrieval under the circumstances is not practical
[insemich se the cost to retrieve the rum vas eativated at
§1 million). ‘Further, the Department of the Attorney
General ceed not have the ability to comply with the
Tdiscevery créer] since ite entire budget for litigation
GSpensea for the curvent fiscal year ie spproxicately $1-4
million{,] from which it mist pay for all the litigation
Cnpenses for the year, with two specific cese exceptions not
Selevant here; and the prior yeare budget was similarly.
[faited, "Purtner, the value Of the instant case ie legs
than [the] $2 siliion . . . required to be spent in recovery
of the drum,

‘The State further indicated that it is unaware of any

 

 

 

statute waiving the state's sovereign ssmuniey with respect
tov ceurt ordered sanction, let alone one for in essence
he million doliare!. Zt {e evident that (the trial court]
888 not know of the cost of retrieval, since the only
figures before her were for $15,000.00 initially, then
$280,000.00 on the notion for relied from the [aisccvery
Order]. Therefore, thle trial court) should not now insist
fon production, shich (would) {n essence be tantancunt to a
SCelelal sbecgetion of sovereign inmunity and e judsuent
Against the state for che million dollars.

 

   

 

Lastly, the State urged the trial court to fashion a sanction

eimilar to the cne in vong v. City & County of Honolulu, 66 Haw.
389, 665 P.2d 157 (1983), in which this court affirmed a sanction

that essentially estopped the City and County of Honolulu (the

222+
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

ee

city) from claiming that a traffic signal control box was
defective in design or manufacture,” stating that:

[me trial) court could order that the state wil be
dotepped from contesting the presence of lead, mercury or
Sreenle in the wood chips of the demolished cottage, Dut
Setving it to the [Choe] to sect their burden of proof of
these “fact” by competent evidence.

 

 

As previously indicated, the trial court’s initial
sanctions order, filed on December 22, 2000, provided that the

State wae estopped from, inter alia,

[(2)] claiming that the custodian cottage contained toxic
eicsis, samely lead, sereury and arcenie [and (2)]
Senying that the (Choe) have actually been exposed to a
deeage within the established range for vhich there ia an
EGtablssned caveal relationship between exposure to the
Eexine » «and the occurrence of diseese from April 1985
to septenber 1995.

 

‘two years later, on December 31, 2002, the State filed

a notion for reconsideration, arguing that:

Although (HRS) § €03-21.9 gives the courts authority to
Zechion appropriate sanctions, in HRS § 662-2, the state
Sete noe expressly vaive ite imunity from such sanctions
The {trial} court’ order that the state had to provide the
Teiety-five gallon drum of debria] at ite omm expense wan
Eiptancunt coe monetary sanction. “The order that the state
had to provide the (Srus] at a cost of $15,000 or nore vas
Egntancunt co judicial abrogation of the State's sovereign
Tmeunity. An order that the State must provide (the drum]
ata cost of approxinately $1 million would be tantenount to
judicial abrogation of the State's sovereign inmunity.

Binilarly, (RCP) Rate 37{,] which governe the types
of sanctions that the courts nay’ inposed for a party's
failure to take discovery, prohibite the sanctions that vere
inielalty, and subsequently{,] imposed on the State in this
Cove.” SHCP Rule 37(e) provides in pertinent part:

 

   

 

 

 

 

% The Hong case involved a personal injury action commenced by a
pedeatrian and ber parents agaizat the City for injuries sustained by the
Pegestrian at # street corner at which traffic lights were ralfunctsoning.
Reonaw, ae 90°91, €€5 F.2d at 59. In that cese, the City was cancticned for
olny aescrcyea the eignal control box.

 

 

-23-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Repences Against the State. Except to the
extent permitted by statute, expenses and fees
Say not be awarded against the state or @ county
under this rule.

 

 

‘The [tr4a1) court crdered the State to retrieve and produce
the [Grun] at its own expense. Thst order vas an svard of
expe ‘That order was contrary to Rule 37.

 

(Emphasis in original.) Further, the State contended that the

 

initial eancticns were disproportionately severe inasmuch at

Anter alia,

the eciaion to denolish the cottage was made well before,
nd not because of, Dr. Arora’s Novenber 22, 1595 . « «
Feport regarding Calvia(.] Moreover, there ie no cvidence:
thet there was any communication between the facilici
Personnel vho nade the decieion to demolish the cottage, and
thote state attorneys who vere handling [Calvin's] workere”
conpensation claim shat would even suagest any sntent to oF
grees neghigence In not having [ehe debris) tested earlier
for the Heavy setale, or even suggest any deliverste
Spellation of evidence that might arguably be critical to
Stne lawsuit that had not yet Deen filed.” Yorecver, there
Exever seked the state for
(éitey"five gallon drum of cebrie) to

 

 

 

 

fe no evidence that
pernfesion to send ti
Sten.

(Emphasis in original.) The State also attached excerpts from

 

 

three depositions of (1) Dr. Hagadone, (2) Hong, and (3) Calvin.

However, as the Chos argue -- and we acree:

[elven if the state's three deposition excerpts vere "new
wvidence,* it nade no attenpt to show such raters could not
have een raiced during the earlier nearing. (The Chos]
filed their complaint in 1997, and the state did not take
[calvin)'e deposition until 2002, Stephen tong found lead
in the cottage valle in 1995, but vas not deposed until
2603. The state Iisted Dr. mark Hagedone ae an expert
wituges in ite Sancary 11, 1999, pre-trial etatesent, 20
snonthe before [the initial] sanctions hearing.

 

  

 

 

 

 

Based upon the foregoing, we believe the State’s motion for
reconsideration wae an attempt to re-Litigate the issues
presented in its menorandum in opposition to the Chos’ motion for
sanctions. Ae indicated aupra, a motion for reconsideration is
not an opportunity for a party to present a better and more

-24-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

compelling argurent th

 

ft the party could have presented in the
original briefs. See also Frietsch v, Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 625,
828 (7th Cir. 1995) ("It ie not the purpose of allowing notions
for reconsideration to enable a party to complete presenting his
case after the court has ruled against him. Were such a
procedure to be countenanced, some lawsuits really might never
end, rather than just seeming endless.") ial Cos

cured Creditors of C v. Coopers & Lvbran
LLB, 222 F.3d 147, 167 (24 Cir. 2003) (*[W]here litigants have
once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be
required, nor without good reeson permitted, to battle for it
again.” (Internal quotation marke and citation omitted.)). The
State, therefore, failed to raise any arguments or offer any
evidence that could not have been presented during the original
motion for sanctions proceeding. See State v, Honolulu Univ. of
Arts, Sciences & Hunanities, 110 Hawai'i 504, 518, 135 P.3d 113,
127 (2006) (holding that the defendant “could and should have
raised ite. . . argument in its memorandum in opposition to the
frst

[plaintiff]’s motion for relief inasmuch as reconsideration is

 

ntiff}’s motion for relief or at the hearing on the

not a device to raise argurents that could and should have been

brought during the earlier proceeding") (citation omitted) .*

   
 

Giccretion in granting ies is
Gxpiain hew the argunente raised in ite motion for reconsideration were not
(Continued...)
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Consequently, the trial court clearly exceeded ite bounds of
reason in reconsidering ite initial sanctions order -- three
years after its issuance -- to the substantial detriment of the
ches, whose case was delayed for trial for another year. Anta
Inc., 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 26. Consequently, the ICA
erroneously failed to address whether the trial court abused its

discretion in issuing the amended sanctions order, via its grant

 

of the State's notion for reconsideration.

 

(, .,continved)
argunente ‘that could have been valeed in the previcus motion for sanctions
Proceeding. In fact, the state attenpte to reargue the eanctione matter in
Tee response, contending -- ae it did before the trial court ~~ that:

 

 

 

the Choa] aia gather and teat their own samples of debria
even before the state had gathered and tested cemples, and
Therefore were not prejudiced in any way by the cut-of-evate
Sterage, and inability to retest the [the fifty-five gallon
Grom)... . There was no evidence that the State
deliberately destroyed or even sent [the drun] out-of-state.
In fact, it was nerely the fact that the cost of retrieving
the (drum) vas prohibleive.

 

™ the Choe, in their direct appeal, alo argued that that the stat
notion for reconsideration:

 

ignored the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and flatly

by predecessor counsel in
leadings and hearing argueent with recerd to law

‘sovereign ismuniey, (HRCP) Rule $5. [(2007)

concerning’ default judgrent)], and the legality of Judge
Hifo's [initial sancticns order]. Deputy Attorsey Ceneral
Charles Fell acknowledged that Judge Nakatani’s ordere were
the law of the case, stipulated that the cancticns imposed
G16 not viclated [uicP] Rule 55(e) [(relating to defaule
Sudguent against the State)) or sovereign icmunity, and
Senittea the Seste could have recovered che drum for $15,000
if de hae simply complied with Sudge Nakatani’ orders on
eine]

 
   

 

 

 

 

‘The chos further ceserted that the trial court/s decision to grant the state's
fotion for zeccnsideration violated the law of the case doctrine in that "the
State did zt argue, and Judge Hifo did not find, that cogent reasons
Surtified her Gecision to Sisresara the law of the case.’ The SCA, sowever,
Indicated thae it woule

 

 

   

 

 

-26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

See

B lure to Aédrees All of the of Nealics

‘The Chos argue that the ICA gravely erred in affirming

the trial court’e conclusions when the trial court failed to make

 

adequate FOFs and Cols in that it did not address duty or breach

of duty with regard to negligence, or the elements of breach of
warranty. Specifically, the Chos maintain that the trial court

failed to make

(continued)
‘hot reach the question whether the [amended s] anctions
{elsder ignored the doctrine of Judicial estoppel by
SSENTg the" State 'co contradict the positions ite
predecessor counsel had tak{en) in ice 2000 pleading
fegegene that ted to [ene trial court's) [initial slanctions
feirder-

Tit would ats0) not reach the question whether the
doctrine of the law of the case, Querubin v. Thronss, 107
Havalt 4, 60, 109 P.94 609, 701 (2008), precluded ithe
trial court) #zom entering [ite anended ‘s}enctions (o] der
[hn place of her (initial elanctions (olrder.

 

   

 

00 at 14. The Choe, on application, made the came arguments as it did before
the Tex.

This court hae recognized that the doctrine of ‘aw of the case” is ™
rule of practice besed on consideration of efficiency, courtesy, and conity,
Flelefere, snlese cogent reasons support the second court's action, any
Milficaticn of a prior ruling of another court of equal and concurrent
Jurisdiction will be Geened an sbuse of discretion. Stencer v. Vincent, 92
faval't es, 362, 992 P-24 50, 57 (2000) (internal quotation marke, citation,
es original beseketa omitted). Alehough, in Tight of the above discussion
RES Ceseiueion, this court need not address these contentions, ve ckserve that
Seago bite aid not in any vay reconsider of reverse any of Judge Nakatani
Beate “Rather, Suage Hifo wae seked to feehicn a discovery sanction for the
Haters failure to comply with Judge Nakatani’s discovery cider. Indeed, the
State sceerte in ite response to the Chos’ application ~~ as it did before the
yea =~ tha

 

  

 

 

 

      

 

[she trial court] reconsidered [ite] own, and not another
judge's dlecovery sanction order. Une trial court) ‘«
dieer reconsidering (ite) initial [sanctions order] still
Gepese sanctions on the State for non-compliance with Judge
Nexateni'# order.

 

 

 

 

-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

findings about the State’s duty to inepect, maintain or
Eepair the cottage, or any bresch of that duty. (The trial
Court] die not decide whether the State had a duty to
[Sopece fer texie chenicale before (the Chos] soved in, or
Guring their tenancy. (The trial court] did not decide
ihether the state uae obligated to renove contanination if
Leas found, of sake repairs, [It] did not decide whether
the State bad a duty to inform (the Chos) of lead
Contamination discovered by Stephen Hong. (Ze) ald not
Gecide whether the State wae cbiigeted £9 respond to
[calvinj 's requests for vepairs, fo tend to ternites
Heplace diesciving ceiling tiles, or to patch the leaky,
Foot, (It) did not address the State's spoliation of
evidence, of [the Chos]' argunent that this destruction of
Evidence virtually guaranteed they would be unable to prove
contamination.

 

 

 

 

 

to

 

   

 

As argued on direct appeal, the Chos believed that, *[aJbeent a
finding of duty and breach, or ‘negligent conduct,’ there is no
way a trier of fact can determine causation." Also, the Chos
assert that the trial court erred in failing to address the
elenents of their breach of warranty claim.

on this point, the ICA seked and answered as follows:

Age the Choe right that without deciding the other saterial
Clenente cf the two causes of action, [the trial court) was
fot authorized to decide the issue of causation of damage?
The arever is no, Assuming all of the other material
Elenents of the two causes of action have been proven, one
Srinore of the Choe met also prove that the breach of duty
Gaured bim, her, oF them danage.

 

  

 

500 at 13. He agree with the ICA's above conclusion. The Choe
fail to present any authority requiring the trial court to also
expressly address the duty, breach of duty, and breach of the
warranty." Therefore, the Chos fail to satisfy their burden of
positively showing error committed by the ICA. Consequently, the
IA properly concluded as it did in connection with the chos

aforenentioned argument.

 

 

% we note that the trial court aié conclude that the chos “failed to
prove thet clsim{] of Breach of warranty of habseabiliey("

-28-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

 

In Light of the above conclusion -- namely, that the
trial court abused ite discretion in granting the State’s motion

for reconsideration, -- it would appear that the case should be

 

remanded to the trial court for a new trial. However, we cbserve
that the State spparently contended on direct appeal that,
irrespective of whether the trial court abused its discretion in
granting the motion for reconsideration, *{tJhere is ample
support in the credible evidence of the court's findings and
conclusions" regarding causation. As auch, the State asserted
that the appellate court “need not substitute its own
determination of credibility, weight, and causation.” In retort,
the Chos argued that they had “not asked thle appellate] court to
dot so, as the State so contended, and, in fact, they did “not
claim that insufficient evidence supported the trial court's

ruling, but rather, the court failed to render adequate findings

 

and conclusions," as discussed in section III.3. supra.
As previously discussed, the amended sanctions order is
vacated inasmuch as the trial court inappropriately granted the
motion for reconsideration. The initial sanctions order,
therefore, would be reinstated, resulting in the resolution of
the duty and breach of duty elements of negligence in favor of

ues narrow to causation and

 

the chos. Consequently, the é
Ganages. To this end, we believe that, based upon the evidence
adduced at trial, the Chos have failed, as a matter of law, to

-29-
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION **
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

demonstrate that their injuries were caused by their alleged
exposure to mercury, lead, and arsenic during their ten-year
occupancy of the cottage.

We have stated:

 

Generally, @ court finding that 19 not challenged on app
ie binding open thie court. see Brener v, Wecks, 104
Hawal's 43, 63, 05 P-36 250, 270. (2004) (holding that
“Eindioge of fect that are not challenged on appeal are
binding on the appellate court"); a
Bug, ing, v. Laupthoehse Transp. Coq, 31 Bavalt 224,239,
562 P.20 653, ecb (1959) (holding that “findings of tact
that are unchallenged on appeal aze the operative facts of a

se"); Kavanata Ferme, Ine. v. United nari Prots., 66
Hawat't 214, 262, 960 Po2d 1085, 1093 (2997) (erating that
Sie'a ineing Se noe properly ateacked, iv is binding, and
any conclusion which fellows from it and fe a correct
Statenent of law is valid (quoting Wisdom v. Pflueser, 4

8 (2583) )7

 

 

  

Haw. App. 655, 459, 667 P24 €44,

Kelly v, 1250 Oceanside Partners, 111 Hawai'i 205, 227, 140 P.3d
985, 1007 (2006) (ellipsis and brackets omitted). Moreover, we

observed that:

cre de well-settled that an appellate court will not pass
pon Sesues dependent cpon the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the
trier of fact." 93 awes'd 87, 102, 597
Pi2d'13, 27 (2000) (eltaticns and internal quotation ‘signals
onitted), (erackete in criginal); see also Lelay v. Leander,
$2 laval't ce, 626, 994 F.2d 546, 588 (2000) ("thie court
fae long chsevved that it ie within the province of the
trier of fact to weigh the evidence and to sscese the
credibility of witzesces, and this court will refrain from
Snterfering in these determinations.) (Citation onitted.).

 

 

 

  

 

 

Inre Dos, 95 Hawai'i 183, 190, 20 P.34 616, 623 (2001) (ellipsis
and brackets omitted). Bearing the aforementioned principles in
rind, we examine the facts of this case.

initially, we chserve that the Chos do not challenge --
either on application or on dixect appeal -- any of the Fors

entered by the trial court on April $, 2008. Specifically, the

-30-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

OE
relevant unchallenged FOFs, which are binding upon this court,

reveal the following:

Sf, vegieal records from aicer Permanente [(the
Kaiser reccrés)}, beginning in 1971, show that before [the
Choa] soved to the cottage ("pre-cottage"), Calvin...
Segeleriy sought treatment for numerous sincr ailments.
These include treateent for colds, fu, fal, contusion,
uccle strain, naval congestion, worm, ‘headache, dizzy
Spells itchy cye, sore throat, episode of gastroenteritis,
She pain, etonseh ache, palpitation, [and] episode of
Ssarthea.

‘BE, as carly ae the mid-19708, calvin .
Qiognosed with recurring allergies, itchiness, Yathe
Geratitie, athietel'le foot over hie body, hearing ct
Sow back pioblens, repeated episodes of headaches,
Alzziness, chest pain, gas, and stoach pain. He’ also ha
Geen Giaghosed with nigh Blood pressure.

‘De, he carly ae the wid-19708, he began to experience
back and leg pain due toa sunber of back injuries.

‘Dr. ds early ae the wid-19708, Calvin... had fears
of being poisoned.” in the ¥aieer records, the tay 5, 1976
Shey seated chat Calvin =. . reported that he suspected
Chee ecsecne had tried to’ poison him by contaminating hie
Eee, and therefore he wanted his tea tested for poison.

Ze. some two years later{,) the Decerter 20, 2978
entry stated that he was convinced that sone kind Of poison
wae affecting his eyes

55, she canary 26, 2979 entry stated (tbat Calvin}
wae convinced @ forner co“worker was trying to poison him,

So, Ae early se the mid-i9708, Calvin ; = . reported
a tong nietory of varital diteicultios with nie witel, Heel.
fn the aieer records, the June 13, 3977 entry stated that
he bed fighte with hie wife about her lying to him and
Rising seyenecks. He eaid that ais wife's fanily was crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

  

 

 

  

  

« . fled & workers!
coupencation cisim afieing from his Concerns that he had
Ecen expoced to asbestoe in the work place. He was scen by
Cecupational medical expert John Endicott, M.D. at Straub
Giiskee heepital sho detected no asbectos related disease.

32. Br. Endicott again saw (Calvin) on May 16, 2990,
regarding (hia) concerne of chenical poisoning at work due
terthe cee of organcphoephate pesticides. There were no
physieal signe, and the leberatery tests were normal. Dr.
Endicott conelaged the symptoms were purely peychosocatic,
after [calvin] reported feeling better becaute of his
TMeteken belief the phlebotonist had injected medication
When drawing [his] blood.

33, an Decenber 2990[,] Calvin. . . began seeing
aniergist Dr. [George] Ewing for chemical Sensitivity to
Srsenophcephate rateriale at work. In the doctor's Decenber
SUP i950 report(,] he concluded that (Calvin] vas "generally
2d exceedingly healthy despite a myriad of complaints,

Br. wing referred (Calvin) for evaluations regarding those

 

 

 

 

 

wae
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

   

complaints, cone of which comprise his allesed injurik
thie action.

54. in considering Calvin{'e) complaints of munbzese,
tingling end pain in his lege, (a]eurologiee Uanes Pierce,
M.D. Giagncsed (Calvin} with 2 aild neuropathy, the most
Coenen causes of which were diabetes and alcohol
Consumption. Dr. Pierce thought the condition was stable

@ should not progress. AE trial[, Calvin] denied heavy
Grinking sod in 1991 bed told Br. Bving [that] he was
compliant with his orders to stop snd at the cane tine told
Br. Pierce he had drank no nore than 2 beers and not every
Gay. Earlier sedical records contain a history of daily
Grinking for more than 20 years.

438. Urologist Cary Lattscer, M.D. addressed
calvini’a} conpiainte of decreseed 1Sbido and erectile
Syetuncelon. At erial{,) Br. Lateiner testified that the
Laboratory results were within
age and that he had no opinion of {calvin}
Complainte. He hed earlier (1999) declined to give any
Fsting for vorkere’ conpensation purpetes. At that timel,]
the reported inpotence, for which’ [calvin] declined to
undergo cbiective testing, and the alld neurcpathy were
Eeing explored in connection with [calvin] "# workers”
conpensation claim for exposure to pesticides. Indeed, Dr.
(Richard) Lau'e reports record (Calvin's) hisiory of
erectile dysfunction dating back to [his] 1578 back
Injury (,) which (Calvin) at trial eaid wae inaccurately
reported history.

436. On Sanuary 31, 2991, Dr. Eving referred
calvin: . back to DE, Endicott, in hie February 20, 1992
entry, dr! indicoce indicated that the laboratory tests he
Srdered shoved *borderline abnertal nercury level in the
Blood of 47 ug/L," but that lead and arsenic had not heen
Getected. De Endicott further noted that Calvin... do
Sfngest ceafood on a regular basis" and concluded that ‘the
Likely source of the nercury was contaminated sesfocd,
although other sources vere possible. Other sources
foggected to (Calvin) at trial sncloded his teeth because he
hada Jot of silver analgam dental work.

37. “Dr. Ewing then referred Calvin . . . to physical
redical and rehabilitation epecialiet Cary Ckancto, M.D.

Dr. Okaccto reiterated Dr. Plerce's early diegnesle of
peripheral neuropathy in the lege, and possibly in the are,
io a result of repeated expeaure to organcphcephate
chenicale at work:

438, Tn connection with calvin{’s} workers’
conpensation for chenical exposure, he vas evaluated by
neurologist John Henrickson, .D. tn his June 4, 1987
Yeport, Dr. Hendrickson concluded that the peripheral
neuropathy vas not the result of exposure to orsancphosphate
Chenieaia, Bue instead vas possibly due to mercury

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

poisoning!
33. to the allegation made in this case that

the cottage wae the cource of lead, areenic and sercury

poisoning, shen Calvin... . vas avay from work because of

 

the alleged work injuries, ind therefore necesearily
spending nore tine at hong, according to Dre. Bving and
Okamoto, Calvin('a) condition wae actually improving

232
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
‘West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

eS

40, tn connection with the workers’ compensation
clain for chenieal seneitivicy, calvin. . » was evaluated
Sy allergist stuart fuerak, McD. In hig Novenber 8, 1992
Peper, Br, Rusnak concluded that the peripheral *neuritiet
was related to Calvin('s] chronic alechol consumption and
YSngrter treateent by Rulvicin for hie achletel’le foot,
Pather than related £0 any sensitivity to chenicals in the
Work place, furnak testified at trial to the cane effect.
The (Cleurt finds thie testinony creaible and persuasive.

42. Dr, Swing nevertheless maintained in Decesber|
ge that Celvinl'el condition was a result of the work
piece, in the end[,] the State denied [Calvin]’s workers’
Ponpeneation claim, and he becane embittered by that
Litigation.

42, By Avguet 2992[,) Dr. Ewing Getersined [that
catvin) had sufficiently recovered from the toxic effects of
Chenical exposure to revurn to full tine work after one and
a'half years. The first day he returned Co school,

oe2, [Calvin] sought energency treathent for
Sfurning eyee(,] shortness of breath and bilateral chest
pain due to alleged exposure to toxic funes from » broken
EStele containing chemicals, The next day, Dr. Lau found
bimnersal st @ follow-up vieit and (Calvin) filed» new
workers’ conpeneation claim.

Recasse of the incident at work, Dr. Bving had a
Gietogue with [the] school séninietrator in 1992 and. 2993
Shout what Calvin , ... could and could not de at work.

Tee Gp Aoguee 20, 2994, ‘Calvin... sustained a back
injury at vork. DF. bau treated (Calvin) for that injury
ana. in May 1999 opized [that Calvin] could not return to
Stork. [calvin] took diesbility retizenent in connection
NEEh ene Back injury when dnformed the state would otherwise
Yoetinate him effectively July 30, 1599. In a post
Fetirenent entry ordering a dlagncatic WI for back pain,
Dr. Lau notes of [Calvin]: “Unfortunately rany of the

Findings are subjective and gifficult to

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

guestify.
42) at trfal{,] there vere objective evidence of
blood and cther testing for heavy metals in (Calvin). On

Sancary 18, 1952, [calvin)’e biced test results detected no
Jead and nd arsenic.

ae. while he Lived in the cottage, Calvin... had
fal blood tanpies tested for mercury. The levels

Setectea in his syetem fluctuated. =

 

 

Moreover, in connection with one of his workers’ compensation
claims for chemical sensitivity, FOF No. 15 provided that Calvin

was evaluated by Dr. Arora, who

233+
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***

in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

concluded that calvin('s] eymptone were the result of
Rereury Poisoning. He suggested that the source of the
Rercury vee in the hone environment, protably due to
Caivin{‘e] self-medication with Astan folk renedie

fae to Me diet. (1

2 veld

 

With respect to the Chos’ conditions post-cottage period, the

 

unchallenged FOFs revealed at follows

47. br, Eying, in hie Septesber 20, 1896 letter to
br. Uns, ‘noted that Hee(’s) mercury levels vere normal and
that be’ vee snot convinced, personally, that either of these
Feoplel, ica, Calvin nd fee, have any significant
Eyikenes hat’ ve could relate to mercury or lead even though
[Calvin] ie ineietent that this way be the problem,"

‘calvin... - also ineleted that his famiay
nesbers be trested for heavy setal poiecning, and they
Undervent a course of chelation therapy norsally reserved
for acste toxic exposure. At trial.) expert testimony)
proved the trestnent wee unnecessary and inadvicable because
Be the attendant potential side effects of the bonding
Sgente used.

‘co. in connection with the chemical exposure claim,
in hie dune 8, 1957 report, occupational medicine specialist
Leonard cupo, M.D. concluded that Calvin{'s) syeptoms
pot indicative of lead or mereury poisoning. He reitereted
that Calvin... never had elevated lead levels. He
further concluded that the fluctuating elevated mercury
levels were due to diet.

‘sd, DE. Cupo followed that report with another dated
ceptenter 26, 2597, in which he sursarized the records he
Fevieved, and reiterated his opinions regarding lead and
hercury. He also addressed the issue of arsenic. ie
Concloced again that the most 1ikely source of che slightly
elevated arsenic level wae diet.

   

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

% specifically, Dr. Arora indicated that test results denonstrated
that the level of lead in Calvin’ Blood was “normal at 1.9 micrograns per
Seciaitert and that hie mercury level "vas

micrograne per liter, the norral being les
Dr. Arora stated that,

 

 

  

beyond reasonable doubt, [Calvin] has been expeced
Tnternittently to sereury in hie hone environment...

The source of nercury exposure at hone could be food,
Certain hobbies (for example, antique cleaning and polishing
with netallie nereury), hose renedies, old antique furniture
Treated wlth mercury-containing fungicides.)

fora concluded that “the question of nercury exposure (in the
‘pot even resotely arise. There 1s no cleaning chemical #
‘Sieg by [Calvin] were non-nercury

   

workplace) do
Containe nereury and the insecticdee

conpeusds

   

 

 

<34-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

see

52. After the fanily lefe the cottage, [the chos] had
their blcod, hair and urine samples tested for lead, arcente
Sha sercury{, which teste shoved fluctuating, and even
Gnevessing levels of these metala years after the Cho moved
out of the cottage.)

s2:, [dhe Choa) retained expert toxicologiet névard
Massaro, N.D., sho concluded that the family vas subjected
fo iong-term iow level cottage exposure of lead, arsenic and
Sezcury that they ingested, inhaled and absorbed by skin
Contact. ie also concluded that ali fanily cenbers have
Sarlous medical conditions sone of which nanifest
[Eeitabélity sna peychological or mental deficits as a
result of the exponure.

 

 

 

  

3. fal aro and witnes
she suaal taste co creda cea ele eT ores
ae ee enc credible

SEE the 7 aie ont a

sestion, snd Skin. fermi cont

=
of ios] were expos

syst opel ba
caused by cottace exaceure, Dr. Cuno credibly testified to
Sfetitee ctiect. the scientific Basse inclodeL1 inter

2 ale fe Beas
asap nae bleed ng ge the as teee Seaieny sacord

Bee “the [chos]’ nedical records (beginning with
kaiser in 1571 for all except the teins which begin at their
{Ster'birch) are voluminous and include many referrals
Gdthin Kaiser, within the workers’ compensation system,
Uddin the no-fault autosobile insurance syste and others
Ghesen by [the ches) for forensic purposes in connection
Goh thie 1itigaeion, 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

the eek of complaints feo ied
Seni beat ioe.
isoncses thal Te-evistine =edica zee 2
ae ee ane Sedicsl a of 2
Egpordel. bealnning fi atsig myriad com
heaithefpeluging daraeed ied

Shes. -At-trial il sh the ore=cotta
iftieation ciate dsb ie 7
Spliten docantation roviders than eh

-38-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Hee’ s]_testineny(-1

paren”, recarding besdad
es chey existed at al

0.155 motor vehicle sccisent , discussed intra)

56. Calvin... unsuccessfully liticsted vorke

 

 

sompensation claims retarding asbestos and chemical
Sensitivity and oulded Me dauchters to exdoaerste anv 298;

FZ F fa] eating
‘ghelation treatnent and mandated hia children underag

£ 2 west

of fone bees

elective recorda he provided in hones of recovering noney
Sscsere in this. = ent
secondary cain cotivation, and hia teatinony recerding

Fe oe = ible by the

(Emphases added.) Moreover, as aptly and correctly summarized by
the State in its ancwering brief, the medical records of the Cho

children revealed the following:

 

The [Kaiser] records shoved that David... had a
nietory of palpitations, and frequent visite for
psychosonatie symptoms.” His pre-cottage school records
Indicated below average aptitude and poor grades. He
aropped out of high school, and did not graduate.

Tennyl'e) Heiser recorde ... is only interesting for
its Decenber 1, 1972 entryl,] which stated that his father
yeported that he felt his con was “slow,” and for ite
February 23, 1974 entry(,] which documented a bead injury
and post-infury headaches. His pre-cottage school records
Snatested below average to average eptitude in vocabulary,
Yeading, spelling, language, and below average to above™
average aptitude in math. Mie grades were average to above
average at best-

Faren . . . experienced a variety of minor ailzente
ranging from itchy ever, colde, coughe, bronchitia, fever,
stersch aches, vomiting, oral sores, réshes, and pinworas-
The nest noticeable entty in the Kaiser reccrde vas on
August 23, 1963() that indicated [Chat che) was undervesght
ted had nind seotioeie, “ner school records clearly
indicated that her pre-cottage aptitude for vocabulary vas

the lowest, reading xas below average, and sone of her
lath aptitude levels were also below average. ‘The records
60 showed that sone [of her] wath levels were low average
And spelling wae low average

Like Ber twin, Skaron{'s) records indicated a variety
of aitvente, abéomial pain, poor eating habite, as vell as
parental veforts of her odd behavior. Also 1ike her twin,
Staron{*s] school records clearly indicated that pre-cottige
aptitude for reading vocabulary, and language were below
average, and that spelling and cath aptitude were at most
average:

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

-36-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

os

2, During cottage
Zhe recorde vere devo!d of any complaints compatible

with lead, arsenic or mercury poisoning by the chilren

Goring the pericd that the (ches) lived in the cottage. In

fact, Tenty s - + Gid not seek nedical care for any reason
Until hie father directed him to see Dr. Tau.
Galy the evine[,] Karen and sharoal,] . . - complained

of heataches and less’ of menory Beginning’ in Decenber’ 1553.
However, contrary to their later claine that the sysptoms
here the result of exposure to the lead, arcenic and
mercury, netale (eiel, their om medical records showed that
These Complaints, if eal, were the result of a Decenber 6,
{5s3 cctor vehicle accident in which the twine clained that
they eustaized head injuries and for which they sought
Extensive nedical care even after they noved from the
ESteages[¥] At trial, although in support of their claim
thet Caused their illnesses, they would “recall”
instia about the condition of the cottsge, they would feign
[allure to recall their extensive treatnent for what they
Glained at the tine were serious head injuries

    

 

 

3. Fost-cottage

Bividi'e) nedieal records show a eixteen year gap in
health care from April 2, 1981, snd March €, 1997, shen he
Wee seen by Dr. Lav at hie father's ineistesce. At the
tine!“Sivid . | . dented any history of Headaches, nausea or
stomach probiens.

Urblegist Dr. Lattimer examined and tested David...
at his father's insiatence, and fear of fertility problens.

 

  

Teeulte were normal.)

 

 

However, the leboratory ©
ithe hie brother, Tenny . . . did not seek health care
for ten years until after the laveiie vas filed. The Chos

Argued that urologiat Dr. Joseph Mezvoy concluded that Tenny
stShad fertility protiens. However, there is no evidence
{nat’pr. Mevoy wa able to give an opinion to a ressonsble
Gegree of medical probability that exporure to lead, arsenic
Gnd sercury wae the cause, snd admitted that there were a
Humber of other possible Causes.

 

  

ie their father’s insistence, . . . Karen and
sharon’... subaiteed to evaluation by gynecologist Dr.
keneth Vi,” Karen's «. gave a history having beadaches,

but did sot disclose chat they had begun only after the i993
Roter vehicle accident. Dr. vu concluded that the headaches
Mere not abnormal and tended to be around the tine of

Uenses, Sesed on the reaules of laboratory teste he
Gréered, he concluded that her hornene levels were normal
for her age group.

 

ae trial, Haren related that she and her sister, sharon, were
involved Ip a actor vehicle accident in 19931 “My slater was driving,
in the paseenger eest, anda Jeep —- it was a hit-and-run accident, and
Beep fata the scene." then asked shether Karen recalled having headaches
tbe Secigene, she replied that °2 still renesber having headaches.”
Jiovever, Keren indicated that she also had headaches before the accident.

 

 

F

 

     

 

-37-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

 

More significant vere Dr. Vu'g observations of the
father-daughter relaticnshipll and interaction.

+ Sexanéed to be present during Dr. Yu's
and rather than allow his csughtere to provide
2 history, he insisted on doing so. ‘Tike her
sister, Sharon{'e] fertility test results vere algo sorsal.

 

 

   

 

Based upon the foregoing FOFs, the trial court ruled in

favor of the State, finding that:

58. There ie no credible evidence of [the Choe]
toxie experure te arsenic, lead or sercury from (the
State) 'e cottage.

60," There is no credible evidence of any physical or
Feychelogical injury to any of the (Chos) as a result of
Sreenic, lead or nercury from the State] 'e cottage

Gi, “There Je no creaible evigence of economic injury
to any of the (ches) as a result of arsenic, lead or mercury
from {the State) 's cottage.

 

 

  

Irrespective of the trial court's erroneous decision to
reconsider the initial sanctions order, we agree with the trial
court's above findings inasmuch as (1) the chos fail to challenge
any of the FOFs and (2) we refrain from interfering in the trial
court’s determinations of credibility of the witnesses and the
weight of the evidence. Indeed, aa the State argued on appeal:

[t)he taboratory ¢ from Calvin che
Guring the tine the chos lived in the cottage shoved
negative findings of leed and arsenic, and fluctuating
Tercury levele shich Dre. Endicott, cupo, and Tardice
Concluded vere due to diet undercute the Choe’ argunent
regarding causation.

Dr. Bving's adniesion that (,] when Calvin cho w
pursuing his workers’ compensation claina for "chemical
Sensitivity," and staying at hone in the cottage, instesd of
Getting sore 111 he wae actually getting better aleo
Gndercuts causation. ‘The lack of any evidence recorded
Guring the period the family lived in the cottage of
Siisenee, illnesses snd symptone suffered by hie wife and
Children that can be attributed to the vetale further
Gndercute csusation:

+c (fhe test results of canples taken from all of
the chés after they had noved from the cottage which shoved
that the metsie were either not detected, or that the levele
Were fluctuating, and sometimes even increasing the longer
they hea been ceay from the cottage alee proves a source of
other than the cottage.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

-38-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

‘The shove alone was encugh to support the [eréal]
court's findings snd conclusions, but there was such nore.
She [trial] court chose either to dieregara the vestinony of
the ches’ expert texicslogist Dr. Mascaro, oF at least €©
give nore weight to the testinony of cccupaticnal and
Snvirorsental medicine specialist Dr. Cupo, and the stat
i ‘There is ample cupport for the

     

   

 

Accordingly, we believe the Choa failed to meet their burden with
respect to the causation elenent of negligence. Consequently, we
hold that the ICA, ultimately, was correct in affirming the trial
court's conclusion and judgnent in favor of the state.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the ICA's May 8, 2007

judgment on appeal.

Peter Van Nam Beser and Go

hack’ s. Ravata, for .
petitioners/plaintiffs-

Eppeliante, on the Alam Panator~
application eantee Caden aren

Robin M. Kishi and
Caron M. Inagaki, JOP Co

Deputy Attorneys General,
for respondent /defendant-

appellee, in respon

 

 

-39-