Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02223/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02223-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the final pretrial 1

conference.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON HOPE, )

) 2:04-cv-2223-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY; )

OHANA HOTELS-RESORTS; )

and OUTRIGGER HOTELS-RESORTS, ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

The Final Pretrial Order filed November 28, 2006, permitted

Plaintiff to file a brief addressing what law governs this action if

she disagreed with Defendants’ position at the final pretrial

conference that Hawaii law governs. On December 6, 2006, Plaintiff 1

filed a brief in which she asserts California law should apply because

“the substantive law of the States of California and Hawaii is

essentially identical . . . and, therefore, . . . the law of the forum

state should be applied . . . .” (Pl.’s P. & A. at 3.) On

December 12, 2006, Defendants Ohana Hotels-Resorts and Outrigger

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 91 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff’s brief does not address whether the two State’s 2

laws regarding res ipsa loquitur are the same, even though she indicated

in the Joint Pretrial Statement (“JPS”) that the doctrine would be an

issue at trial. (JPS at 3.)

2

Hotels-Resorts (collectively “Defendants”) filed a responsive brief in

which they argue Hawaii law applies.

A conflict does exist between California and Hawaii law

concerning “[t]he procedural effects of res ipsa loquitur . . . .”2

Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp., 785 F.2d 720, 732 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Under California law, the application of res ipsa

loquitur shifts the burden of production . . . to

the defendant; unless the defendant then comes

forward with evidence suggesting that it was not

negligent or that its negligence did not

proximately cause the injury, the jury is required

to find that the accident resulted from the

defendant's negligence. . . . The doctrine of res

ipsa loquitur raises a rebuttable presumption of

negligence, entitling the plaintiff to a directed

verdict in the absence of contrary evidence.

Id. (internal citations omitted). In Hawaii, however, “[t]he doctrine

merely establishes a prima facie case of negligence; it allows the

case to go to the jury. It permits but does not compel a finding of

negligence, even in the absence of contrary evidence.” Id. at 733.

Under California’s “governmental interest” approach to

choice of law, consideration is given to which state has a greater

interest in application of its law to the case. Waggoner v. Snow,

Becker, Kroll, Klaris & Krauss, 991 F.2d 1501, 1506 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff has not articulated whether California has an interest in

having its law apply. Defendants, however, have asserted that “[t]he

State of Hawaii has an interest in assuring that accidents which occur

in the State . . . are governed by the laws of that state . . . . A

significant portion of the states [sic] economic well being deals with

the tourist industry. . . . It would be judicially disruptive, time

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 91 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

consuming and contrary to the interests of the State of Hawaii to see

the application of forum state law, in each accident occurring in

Hawaii that involved an out-of-state resident.” (Defs’. Resp. at 2.) 

Therefore, Hawaiian law governs this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 91 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 3