Opinion ID: 2796489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excessiveness Under State Law

Text: “Award or denial of punitive damages is within the sound discretion of the trier of fact. The trier of fact’s decision to grant or deny punitive damages will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.” Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 138, 839 P.2d 10, 36-37 (1992) (internal citations omitted). “The proper measurement of punitive damages should be ‘[t]he degree of malice, oppression, or gross negligence which forms the basis for the award and the amount of money required to punish the defendant.’” Kang v. Harrington, 59 Haw. 652, 663, 578 P.2d 285, 293 (1978) (quoting Howell v. Associated Hotels, 40 Haw. Terr. 492, 501 (1954)). “[T]he inquiry on review is limited to whether, ‘upon the evidence adduced, reasonable men [and women] could have come to 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the same conclusion as the jury, or the trial court in a jurywaived case.’” Romero v. Hariri, 80 Haw. App. 450, 458, 911 P.2d 85, 93 (1996) (quoting Lima v. Tomasa, 42 Haw. 478, 483 (1958)).