Opinion ID: 2550923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Various Other Findings Made by The Trial Court

Text: Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court made numerous other erroneous FOFs. As discussed below, their contentions are without merit. First, Plaintiffs allege that FOF Nos. 21, 22, 24, and 25 are erroneous because these findings rely on Exhibit S-7, which was never admitted into evidence. Plaintiffs' argument is without merit. The trial court's exhibit list clearly indicates that Exhibit S-7 was admitted into evidence on July 17, 2001, at 10:02 a.m. Second, Plaintiffs challenge FOF No. 35, which states: It is unknown how Meghal Shah entered the water. Plaintiffs allege that this finding is erroneous because the State never disputed Plaintiffs' assertion that a wave swept Meghal into the ocean. The State maintains that not only did Plaintiffs not prove that a wave swept Meghal into the ocean, Dewal (Meghal's wife) testified that she was unsure how Meghal entered the water: Q: [By defense counsel]: [W]hen you turned around, Meghal was gone? A: [By Dewal Shah]: Yeah. He was on the  he was down there. Q: Excuse me. What I am referring to is after the splash, and you turned  and you turned your back, Meghal was already gone? A: Well, I didn't see him. . . . . Q: You later learned he had  he was in the water? You learned later? A: Yes. Q: And you don't recall how he got there, whether the waves swept him in, whether he jumped in, whether he slipped in? You don't know? A: No. (Emphases added.) Based on Dewal's testimony, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that it was unclear how Meghal entered the water. See In re Jane Doe, Born on June 20, 1995, 95 Hawai`i 183, 196-97, 20 P.3d 616, 629-30 (2001) (noting that testimony of a single witness, if found credible by the trier of fact, suffices as substantial evidence to support an FOF). Third, Plaintiffs claim that FOF No. 26 is erroneous because there is no evidence in the record to support it. FOF No. 26 provides in pertinent part: The Georgia Group then stopped at the Ke`anae Arboretum, where... Meghal Shah spontaneously dove into a foreign pool and invited the others to join him; no one did. The Ke`anae Arboretum is located just a few minutes from [] Ke`anae Landing. It is unclear from the record whether Meghal did dive into a pool at Ke`anae Arboretum. However, even if the trial court's finding is found to be clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs fail to argue how this finding, if erroneous, affected the outcome of the trial court's decision. See HRS § 641-2 (1993) (No judgment, order or decree shall be reversed, amended or modified for any error or defect unless the court is of the opinion that it has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.); Torres v. Torres, 100 Hawai`i 397, 412, 60 P.3d 798, 813 (2002) (noting that in order for a court's erroneous finding to constitute reversible error, appellant must indicate how the erroneous finding affected the outcome of the trial court's decision). And, lastly, Plaintiffs dispute two FOFs with respect to Bobo's testimony. FOF Nos. 68 and 70 provide: 68. According to [Bobo], on January 30, 1997, he had been working on his truck and saw that the ocean conditions near his home were rough. [Bobo] testified that the rough ocean conditions existed from the morning hours and that he could hear the waves breaking and crashing upon the rocks at the landing. . . . . 70. [Bobo] estimated that the biggest waves he saw on that day were at least 15 feet high. Plaintiffs contend that there is no evidence in the record to support these FOFs. Again, even assuming these findings are clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how these findings affected the outcome of the trial court's decision. See HRS § 641-2; Torres, 100 Hawai`i at 412, 60 P.3d at 813.