Opinion ID: 2550923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claim Alleging the Failure of the State to Protect Plaintiffs Against the Alleged Dangers of the Landing Area Itself

Text: On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that FOF No. 3 is erroneous. FOF No. 3 states in relevant part: Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint against Defendant State on May 6, 1999, alleging that Defendant State had a duty to warn of dangerous ocean conditions at [] Ke`anae Landing. Plaintiffs contend that this finding is erroneous to the extent that it disregards Plaintiffs' claim that the State failed to protect them from the dangers at Ke`anae Landing. Plaintiffs argue that they asserted claims for both the State's failure to warn of unreasonable risks and its failure to eliminate those risks, and, as a result, the trial court failed to enter any FOF or COL with respect to Plaintiffs' failure to eliminate risks claim. Thus, Plaintiffs submit that the trial court erred when it entered final judgment as to all claims in favor of the State. In response, the State argues that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the landing area itself was unreasonably dangerous. Based on the analysis provided supra, we agree. The allegation in Plaintiff's amended complaint at issue here specifically stated: [O]n or before January 30, 1997, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that wave, water or other aquatic conditions of or in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to ... Ke`anae Landing, was/were potentially dangerous to visitors of the area, including [the decedents]; further, said defendants, and/or any of them, failed to adequately warn or protect plaintiffs or any of them, or others, of or from the aforesaid dangerous aquatic conditions. (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs, on appeal, incorrectly characterize the claims they alleged in their complaint. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants failed to adequately protect plaintiffs from the aforesaid dangerous aquatic conditions. (Emphasis added.) Inasmuch as aquatic means living or growing in water, Plaintiffs actually alleged that the defendants failed to protect them from water-related conditions, not the man-made conditions of the landing area itself, as they argue on appeal. The Random House College Dictionary 67 (1st ed.1979). Additionally, the trial court concluded that Act 190 relieves the Defendant State of any liability to Plaintiffs. COL No. 107. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that, although Act 190 does relieve the State of its duty to warn Plaintiffs, it does not relieve the State of its alternate duty under common law premises liability `to take reasonable steps to eliminate the unreasonable risk.' However, the landing area itself was found to be neither defective nor dangerous, and, as discussed supra, such finding was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, we hold that FOF No. 3 is not clearly erroneous and that COL No. 107 is correct.