HI Bar - Hawaii Bar Torts and Negligence Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A plaintiff is injured in a car accident in Honolulu and suffers $100,000 in damages. A jury determines that the plaintiff was 50% at fault and the defendant was 50% at fault. Under Hawaii's negligence law, how much can the plaintiff recover from the defendant?
- A) $0, because the plaintiff was equally at fault.
- B) $100,000, with the defendant's insurance covering the full amount.
- C) $50,000, as damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. (Correct answer)
- D) $49,000, because recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is 50% or more.
Correct answer: C) $50,000, as damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Hawaii follows a modified comparative negligence rule, specifically the '51% rule.' This means a plaintiff can recover damages as long as their negligence is not greater than the defendant's (or the aggregate of all defendants'). Since the plaintiff's fault (50%) is not greater than the defendant's fault (50%), the plaintiff can recover, but their damages will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Therefore, the plaintiff can recover $100,000 - (50% * $100,000) = $50,000.
Question 2: A tourist is injured when a coconut falls from a tree on a hotel property in Maui. The tourist did not see the coconut fall and there were no eyewitnesses. The hotel had exclusive control over the maintenance of the palm trees on its property. Which legal doctrine would be most helpful for the plaintiff in establishing the hotel's breach of duty?
- A) Assumption of risk
- B) Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- C) Negligence per se
- D) Last clear chance
Correct answer: B) Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur, which means 'the thing speaks for itself,' is a doctrine that allows an inference of negligence when an accident occurs that would not normally happen without negligence, the object causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm. In this scenario, falling coconuts in a maintained area suggest a lack of reasonable care (negligence), the hotel had exclusive control of the trees, and the tourist was passive. This makes res ipsa loquitur the most applicable doctrine.
Question 3: Which of the following is NOT an essential element that a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie case of negligence in Hawaii?
- A) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
- B) The defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
- C) The defendant acted with malicious intent. (Correct answer)
- D) The plaintiff suffered actual damages.
Correct answer: C) The defendant acted with malicious intent.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) Duty, (2) Breach of Duty, (3) Causation (both actual and proximate), and (4) Damages. Malicious intent is characteristic of an intentional tort, not negligence, which is based on a failure to exercise reasonable care, not a desire to cause harm.
Question 4: A tenant in a Honolulu apartment building is repeatedly harassed by a neighbor in the common areas. The tenant sends multiple written complaints to the landlord about the neighbor's threatening behavior. The landlord takes no action. Subsequently, the neighbor assaults the tenant in the building's laundry room, causing serious injury. What is the landlord's most likely liability to the injured tenant?
- A) No liability, as the landlord is not responsible for the criminal acts of tenants.
- B) Strict liability for all injuries occurring on the premises.
- C) Liable in negligence, for breaching the duty to maintain safe common areas after being put on notice of a specific threat. (Correct answer)
- D) Liable only if the landlord had a special relationship with the assailant.
Correct answer: C) Liable in negligence, for breaching the duty to maintain safe common areas after being put on notice of a specific threat.
In Hawaii, as in many jurisdictions, landlords have a duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition. This duty can extend to protecting tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, including other tenants, especially when the landlord has notice of a specific danger. By ignoring the tenant's repeated written complaints, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable risk, thus breaching their duty of care.
Question 5: A pedestrian is struck by a car in Hilo on May 1, 2023. The pedestrian suffers a broken leg and incurs significant medical bills. According to the Hawaii statute of limitations for personal injury claims, what is the latest date the pedestrian can file a lawsuit against the driver?
- A) May 1, 2024
- B) May 1, 2025 (Correct answer)
- C) May 1, 2026
- D) May 1, 2029
Correct answer: B) May 1, 2025
Under Hawaii law, the general statute of limitations for personal injury actions, including those arising from negligence, is two years from the date the injury occurred. Therefore, the pedestrian must file the lawsuit on or before May 1, 2025. There are some exceptions, such as for medical malpractice or claims involving minors, but the general rule for a standard negligence case is two years.
Question 6: A bar in Waikiki serves alcohol to a person who is already visibly intoxicated. The intoxicated person then drives away from the bar and causes an accident that injures a third party. Under Hawaii's dram shop liability principles, is the bar potentially liable for the third party's injuries?
- A) Yes, because Hawaii's common law recognizes dram shop liability for commercial vendors who serve visibly intoxicated patrons who then harm others. (Correct answer)
- B) No, Hawaii statutes explicitly shield commercial vendors from any liability related to the actions of their patrons.
- C) No, only the drunk driver is ever liable for their own actions.
- D) Yes, but only if the third party was also a patron of the same bar.
Correct answer: A) Yes, because Hawaii's common law recognizes dram shop liability for commercial vendors who serve visibly intoxicated patrons who then harm others.
While Hawaii does not have a specific 'Dram Shop Act' statute creating civil liability, the Hawaii Supreme Court established common law dram shop liability in the case of Ono v. Applegate. This principle holds that a commercial seller of alcohol (like a bar) can be held liable for injuries caused to a third party by a patron if the establishment served the patron while they were visibly intoxicated.
HI Bar - Hawaii Bar Torts and Negligence Questions and Answers
A plaintiff is injured in a car accident in Honolulu and suffers $100,000 in damages.
A jury determines that the plaintiff was 50% at fault and the defendant was 50% at fault.
Under Hawaii's negligence law, how much can the plaintiff recover from the defendant?