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

Heading: Directed verdict regarding duty to retrofit

Text: Having held that an independent, continuing duty on Clark's part to retrofit its products, subsequent to its manufacture and sale, with upgraded safety equipment (1) was not implied in Tabieros I, see supra section III.A.1, (2) is not established by general negligence principles, see supra section III.A.2, and (3) was not assumed by virtue of Clark's own conduct, see supra section III. A.3, we now hold  after disregarding conflicting evidence, giving the plaintiffs' evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference in the plaintiffs' favor  that the evidence adduced at the trial of this matter could not have supported a verdict on the plaintiffs' claim of negligent failure to retrofit. That being the case, the circuit court did not err in granting Clark's motion for a directed verdict in that regard. See Weinberg, 78 Hawai`i at 49-50, 890 P.2d at 286-87.