Opinion ID: 2635221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial testimony of Howard Haymore

Text: Shortly after the P&amacr;hoa Bypass was completed in 1991, an accident occurred in the area, prompting Haymore to conduct a [v]ery informal investigation of the scene. He drove the highway shortly thereafter in heavy rain, however, and observed water coming over the top of the cut bank flowing westward across the highway just south of the driveway, but could never determine the source of that flow, because it was his belief that the land on the eastern side of the road sloped away from the highway. The flow of water started south of the eastside driveway and flowed westward across the highway, cross[ing] both lanes of travel. He did not observe any water flowing from the eastside driveway itself. Haymore was troubled by what he had observed but could see no reasonable source for the water, testifying that I couldn't figure out how in the world it ever got there to start with. . . . [I]f I hadn't seen it, I would say that whoever saw it was off the deep end. Haymore discounted the incident as an anomaly which he presumed was caused by the adjacent landowner dumping water on the roadway and did not observe it again. Although Haymore realized that a repeat occurrence would be a problem, he did not conduct any further investigations to confirm his theory that the landowner had been dumping water and did not at the time formally report his concerns to the DOT. Haymore, as a DOT representative, regularly attended meetings of a community traffic organization, the Puna Traffic Safety Council [hereinafter, the Safety Council], and recalled at least two specific complaints concerning water traversing the P&amacr;hoa Bypass one from a private citizen concerning a section of roadway five hundred feet from the site of Klink's accident reporting water traversing the roadway, thereby making driving unsafe, and one from a police officer more generally describing flooding during heavy rainfall at the site of Klink's accident. Haymore asserted that none of the individuals expressing concern about the road's safety could tell [him] where the water came from that created the observed sheet flow. Nevertheless, as a result of citizens' concerns, Haymore was directed twice by his superiors to reinspect the area. His first investigation was conducted on a day when the weather was dry and clear. Haymore testified that his investigations were purely visual: basically all I did was look at the roadway. . . . I did not investigate any vehicles or anything else. He further testified that trying to figure out where the water came from was the big issue because [o]ne has to know[:] . . . if the water is coming across the entire roadway one inch thick, then I couldn't do anything about it. If it's coming across the roadway one inch thick in a localized area, I can do something about it. He clarified, however, that ascertaining  [W]here it was coming across [the roadway] was the critical feature. (Emphases added.) In addition to the inspections described in his testimony, Haymore also indicated that, because he was interested in responding to the community's complaints concerning water on the highway coming from the two driveways, he tried on several occasions when it was raining to run out and check it . . . [but was] unsuccessful [in] find[ing] any water. Nevertheless, following a second inspection that was prompted by another accident in the area, Haymore recommended that an interceptor ditch be placed on the eastern, high side of the superelevated curve of the highway to prevent water from flowing across the roadway at the site where Klink later lost control of his vehicle. In an August 1, 1996 e-mail to Bruce McClure, his superior at the DOT, regarding the site, he characterized the need for a drainage facility as imperative, see infra. On redirect examination, the Appellants' counsel questioned Haymore further regarding the source of the water and the decision to install the interceptor ditch in 1998 based on what Haymore had uncovered in his investigations: [Counsel]: You've testified that you saw water coming over the top of the bank? [Haymore]: One time, yes. [Counsel]: . . . And as a result of that, you put the interceptor ditch to stop that from occurring? [Haymore]: Well, that and people have told me water came down the driveway, so that I would put the interceptor ditch in to try and accumulate any water that might encounter the roadway from the upper side. [Counsel]: But the interceptor ditch does not extend across the driveways, does it? [Haymore]: It should dip across the driveways at the ditch. [Counsel]: If water should be coming across a cut bank in the manner which you've described, Mr. Klink would have encountered that water in the direction in which he was going. He would later have encountered water coming down from the driveway that enters onto Route 130 just north of . . . where the cut bank would be? [Haymore]: The driveway was north of where I saw the water. [Counsel]: So you're aware of two possible sources of water coming onto the high side of that super elevation curve which would then flow all the way across the roadway? [Haymore]: I can say I only feel there's one source of water, and that would be the driveway. Finally, Haymore testified that, pursuant to applicable safety standards, signs warning of flooded road conditions should be placed about five hundred feet in front of the occurrence.