Opinion ID: 1223875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The circuit court's erroneous jury instructions necessitate a remand for a new trial.

Text: As noted supra in section II.C, [e]rroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 11, 928 P.2d at 853 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Turner v. Willis, 59 Haw. 319, 326, 582 P.2d 710, 715 (1978). Inasmuch as we have held that (1) the danger involved in using the Series 510 straddle carrier was obvious and apparent, discernible by casual inspection, and generally known and recognized, see supra at section III.C.1.b, and (2) the circuit court erred in instructing the jurors that they could find the straddle carrier defective (a) if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary user of the product would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, including reasonably foreseeable misuses, see supra at section III.C.2.a, or (b) solely on the basis of a failure on Clark's part to give adequate warnings regarding the danger involved in the straddle carrier's use, see supra at section III.C.2.b, we cannot say that the jury's finding of liability was not premised on either the consumer expectation or latent danger tests. Accordingly, it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the jury instructions were not fatally prejudicial on the issue of Clark's liability. Moreover, we have held that, although the circuit court properly instructed the jury regarding Tabieros's duty to mitigate or minimize his damages and Clark's burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Tabieros breached that duty, the circuit court erroneously failed to apprise the jury as to the potential consequences  with respect to a jury award  of any failure on Tabieros's part to use reasonable diligence under the circumstances to mitigate or minimize his damages. See supra at section III. C.3. Accordingly, it does not affirmatively appear from the record that Clark was not prejudiced with respect to the issue of damages as well. We therefore have no choice but to vacate the portion of the judgment entered in Tabieros's favor and against Clark and remand the matter for a new trial. While the necessity of a third trial in this case is lamentable, hopefully the present decision and the plaintiffs' settlement with Navigation will simplify the issues and heighten the parties' focus. In this connection, and with an eye toward facilitating retrial and minimizing the possibility of error, we now address the issues on appeal that will likely arise should retrial occur.