Opinion ID: 2626414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: GTE's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: The plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of GTE because GTE is liable for (1) E.E. Black's acts and omissions and (2) its own acts and omissions. Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that the evidence shows that GTE established sufficient control over E.E. Black to render GTE liable for the acts and omissions of E.E. Black inasmuch as GTE had an employee on the job site daily overseeing the progress of the construction[.] Although not entirely clear from their opening brief, it appears from their reply brief that the plaintiffs allege that GTE is liable for its own acts and omissions based on negligent supervision of E.E. Black. Inasmuch as E.E. Black did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiffs, it follows that GTE likewise would not be liable to the plaintiffs for E.E. Black's alleged acts and/or omissions in fail[ing] to pick up, clean up or remove the cement bag after completion of their work or portion of work at the job site. Moreover, because negligent supervision may only be found where an employee is acting outside of the scope of his or her employment, Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92 Hawai`i 398, 427, 992 P.2d 93, 122 (emphasis in original), reconsideration denied, 92 Hawai`i 398, 992 P.2d 93 (2000), and the plaintiffs do not allege that E.E. Black was acting outside the scope of its alleged employment with GTE, the plaintiffs' complaint cannot be said to state a claim for negligent supervision. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of GTE.