Petersen Ex Rel. Petersen v. City & County of Honolulu
496 P.2d 4, 53 Haw. 440, 1972 Haw. LEXIS 132 (1972)
Rule of Law:
A party does not waive the right to move for a new trial by failing to move for a directed verdict because the motions test different evidentiary standards; however, a jury verdict will only be set aside if it is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Jill Petersen, was a minor child just under two years of age.
- The accident occurred at Hanauma Bay, a public park owned and managed by the City and County of Honolulu.
- The child stepped on hot coals located in or near an open barbecue pit.
- The plaintiff suffered severe burns from the contact with the coals.
- The barbecue pit was constructed of concrete blocks arranged in a 'U' shape directly on the ground.
- The pit was completely open in the front, and ashes had spilled onto the surrounding ground.
- The pits were frequently inspected and cleaned by City employees, though some blocks were chipped.
- The pits were completely visible to park users.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the City and County of Honolulu in the trial court for negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City, finding it was not negligent.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
- Plaintiff appealed the denial of the motion to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff waive the right to appeal the denial of a new trial by failing to request a directed verdict during trial, and is a jury verdict finding a municipality not negligent for a child's burns from an open barbecue pit against the manifest weight of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Abe
No to the waiver, but No to overturning the verdict. First, the Court held that the failure to move for a directed verdict does not preclude a party from moving for a new trial. The Court reasoned that these motions raise separate issues: a directed verdict tests whether there is any sufficient evidence to support a case (a legal question), while a motion for a new trial argues that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence (a factual evaluation). Therefore, the plaintiff retained the right to appeal. Second, regarding the negligence claim, the Court found the jury's verdict was not clearly erroneous. Although the pits were open and potentially dangerous, the evidence was balanced. The City inspected the pits regularly, and they were open and obvious. The Court reasoned that a jury could legitimately conclude that a reasonable person would expect parents to closely supervise toddlers around visible hazards, making the specific risk unforeseeable to the City.
Dissent - Justice Levinson
Yes to the waiver analysis, but Yes, the verdict should be overturned. While agreeing on the procedural point regarding the motion for a new trial, the Dissent argued that the jury's finding of no negligence was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Dissent asserted that the City owes a duty of care proportional to the danger, especially in a park designed for children. Describing the pit as a 'booby trap'—low to the ground, containing hot coals, and lacking barriers—the Dissent argued the City was negligent as a matter of law. Furthermore, the Dissent emphasized that a parent's potential failure to supervise does not negate the City's primary duty to provide safe facilities for the public.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying Hawaii civil procedure regarding post-trial motions. It establishes that the motion for a directed verdict and the motion for a new trial serve distinct functions—one tests legal sufficiency, the other tests the weight of evidence—and forgetting the former does not forfeit the latter. Substantively, the case illustrates the 'reasonable person' standard in premises liability involving children. It highlights the tension between a landowner's duty to make premises safe and the expectation of parental supervision. The majority places significant weight on the 'obviousness' of the danger and the role of parents, whereas the dissent advocates for a stricter duty on municipalities to protect children regardless of parental conduct.
