Court Opinion

ID: 9446822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:19:02.681982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:47.591879
License: Public Domain

Petition for Rehearing.
In a petition for rehearing in this ease, appellee cites the rule in Hawaii to be as follows: “In this jurisdiction it is settled that a mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to support a verdict. Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co., 14 Haw. 669; Wo Sing Co. v. Kwong Chong Wai Co., 16 Haw. 17. But it has often been held that this court would not set aside a verdict where there was some evidence, i.e., more than a scintilla of evidence, to support it.” Robinson v. Honolulu R. T. & L. Co., 1911, 20 Haw. 426. See Territory v. Lam Bo, 1917, 23 Haw. 718; Holstein v. Benedict, 1915, 22 Haw. 441.
Conceding such a statement to be the Hawaiian rule, we hold that in the instant case there was no evidence, not even a scintilla, to establish any knowledge in appellant of a dangerous condition requiring it to warn appellee.
On the question of whether local or federal law is here applicable, see “Effect of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins on Sufficiency of Evidence to Present Question for Jury,” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 38.10, pp. 102 et seq.
The petition for rehearing is denied.