Opinion ID: 4531835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Answering Briefs13

Text: Allied first disputed Plaintiffs’ claim that homelessness could be a public nuisance. Relying on Restatement 13 Haas’ liability for the assault was not contested on appeal. However, Haas filed an Answering Brief to the ICA that asserted the following four points of error in the circuit court’s ruling: (1) Judge Ibarra had a conflict of interest because he presided over both the criminal and civil case in the same matter. After the jury convicted Haas in the criminal trial, “numerous rulings” were made, including summary judgment; (2) Haas did not assault anyone and was attacked by employees of Rockstarz who were drinking alcohol and using drugs. The alleged attack against Haas resulted in serious injuries including permanent paralysis to half of Haas’ face and four broken teeth. Haas required stitches and facial surgery, including metal plates in his eye socket; (3) there was evidence spoliation of a hard drive containing surveillance camera footage. The footage, according to Haas, was hidden from prosecutors and police for over a year until a third party notified the prosecutor that the video evidence existed. Haas then alleged that Haynes’ attorney “spoiled” the evidence because the footage could not be viewed from the hard drive, despite the police purchasing a special player for the hard drive; and (4) that he was “definitely not living at the Kona storage facility and in fact never slept there.” Further, being homeless did not have anything to do with this incident. Given our disposition of the case, we need not address Haas’ arguments. 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  § 821B(1) and Littleton, 66 Haw. at 67, 656 P.2d at 1344-45, Allied defined public nuisance as unreasonable conduct that interferes with a public right. According to Allied, Plaintiffs claimed the circumstance of homelessness, as opposed to the conduct of homeless people, was the nuisance. Allied also noted that the mere act of being homeless did not interfere with a right common to the general public and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of unreasonable interference with some public right. Allied concluded that homelessness was not a public nuisance. Finally, Allied argued that Plaintiffs failed to point to any evidence in their Opening Brief that the assault was reasonably foreseeable. Nor, Allied contended, was there any evidence presented that Allied knew or should have known homeless people were sleeping in rented units. Finally, the normal and usual operation of a self-storage business did not involve liability for an assault by an alleged homeless resident “almost half a mile away” from the property. The arguments in Chung Partners’ Answering Brief mirrored those presented by Allied, and additionally contested Plaintiffs’ assertion that it knew or should have known of the homeless individuals residing in storage units. Chung Partners also argued that it did not assume liability for Allied’s torts 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  through its purchase of Allied’s assets, which occurred almost a year after the incident. Further, Chung Partners asserted that the circuit court did not err in awarding it costs. Because the court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs, Chung Partners argued that the claim that Plaintiffs were deprived the right to have a jury determine its liability was inapplicable because it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.