Case: LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendants
Abbreviation: Liberty Mutual Insurance v. General Motors Corp.
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1982-11-05
Docket Number: NO. 8354
Citation: 65 Haw. 428
Volume: 65
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendants
Pages: 428–429

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendants
NO. 8354
(CIVIL NO. 40518)
NOVEMBER 5, 1982
RICHARDSON, C.J., LUM, NAKAMURA, PADGETT AND HAYASHI, JJ.

Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants in a suit between two joint tortfeasors where the plaintiff was found to be 5214% at fault and the defendants 4714% at fault. By entering judgment for the appellees, the court below held, in effect, that the Hawaii Comparative Negligence statute, § 663-31. HRS, governs this action and prevents appellant’s recovery since its fault, under the verdict, exceeded appellees’. We reverse.
We hold that § 663-31, HRS, does not affect an action between two joint tortfeasors under the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, §§ 663-11 through 17, HRS.
Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of the appellant in accor dance with the provisions of the Uniform Contribution Amongjoint Tortfeasors Act.
Jeffrey Y. Higashi (Wayne M. Sakai with him on the reply brief, Burke, Ashford, Sakai, McPheeters, Bordner id Gilardy of counsel) for appellant.
Joseph Schneider (Conklin, Schneider id Love of counsel) for appellees.
Reversed and remanded.