Opinion ID: 2640748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The AOAO's Strict Products Liability Claims

Text: The AOAO contends that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Liu on its strict products liability claims on the bases of (1) the two-year statute of limitations contained in HRS § 657-7 and (2) the economic loss rule. [46] The AOAO, however, did not assign as error the circuit court's order granting Liu's motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that HRS § 657-7 barred the AOAO's tort based claims, i.e., the AOAO's negligence and strict products liability claims. Moreover, the AOAO fails to point out whether the circuit court applied the proper test in determining when the statute of limitations commences to run on a strict products liability claim, which, as the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (federal district court) observed, is different from the test that applies in determining when the statute of limitations commences to run on a negligence claim. In re Hawai`i Fed. Asbestos Cases, 854 F.Supp. 702, 706 (D.Haw.1994). Indeed, after discussing the test utilized in determining when the statute of limitations commences to run on a negligence claim, the federal district court stated: A different test applies to products liability actions. The statute of limitations commences to run on a products liability action on the earliest date that a plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know of the following elements: (1) that the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling the product; (2) that the product contains a defect dangerous to the user or consumer; and (3) that the defect is the cause of his injury. Johnson v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 69 Haw. 287, 740 P.2d 548, 549 (1987). Id. at 706-07 (concluding that plaintiff's negligence and products liability claims, which arose from death of plaintiff's husband allegedly caused by pulmonary disease caused by his exposure to automotive products containing asbestos manufactured by defendants, may have accrued on different dates). The AOAO essentially lumps together its strict products liability claims with its negligence claims for purposes of its statute of limitations discussion and, thus, appears to believe that the statute of limitations for both claims commence at the same time or on the same date. Consequently, based on the AOAO's failure to assign as error the circuit court's order granting Liu's motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that HRS § 657-7 barred the AOAO's strict products liability claims and the AOAO's failure to present an argument that Liu did not prove that the AOAO had knowledge of the foregoing three elements required for accrual of the statute of limitations, we deem the AOAO's contention with respect to its strict products liability claims against Liu to be waived. See HRAP Rules 28(b)(4) & (b)(7). Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Liu on the AOAO's strict products liability claims.