Opinion ID: 2550923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Court's Findings with respect to Prior Drowning Incidents Occurring at Ke`anae Landing Prior to January 30, 1997

Text: Plaintiffs allege that the trial court impliedly found that the State did not have notice of any dangerous conditions at Ke`anae Landing, based on FOF Nos. 9 and 10, which state: 9. There was no evidence that any drownings occurred at Ke`anae Landing prior to January 30, 1997. 10. There was no evidence that the State was aware or should have been aware of any drownings or near-drownings occurring at Ke`anae Landing prior to January 30, 1997. On appeal, Plaintiffs assert that they were not required to prove that the State had any notice of the dangers at Ke`anae Landing because the State created those very dangers. Even if they were required to prove notice, they were not required to prove actual notice. Plaintiffs proved that the State had constructive notice of the dangers at the landing because the State knew how the public used the landing and it knew that the ocean conditions there were hazardous; therefore, the State should have maintained the site to make it reasonably safe for its intended use. Last, the State had constructive notice that [there] were prior drownings at Ke`anae Landing, and even if it did not, it needed to have constructive knowledge only of the dangers at the site, not of whether the exact same injury had occurred there before. (Emphases added.) Although Plaintiffs argue that the State created the dangerous conditions that caused the events of January 30, 1997 (emphasis added), they fail to define exactly what dangerous conditions the State had created. The only conditions mentioned by Plaintiffs in their challenge to FOF Nos. 9 and 10 are the ocean conditions. However, Plaintiffs surely could not have intended to assert that the State somehow created the hazardous ocean conditions. It appears that Plaintiffs may be attempting to argue that the man-made conditions at Ke`anae Landing, i.e., the concrete platform areas and stairway, were dangerous. Such argument is similar to their contentions regarding the risks associated with the landing area itself. See discussion infra. Because section 2(e) of Act 190 does not impose any duty on the State to warn of dangerous natural conditions in the ocean at coastal accesses, beach accesses, or in areas that are not public beach parks, the trial court's FOF Nos. 9 and 10 were unnecessary, but nevertheless not clearly erroneous.