Costales v. Rosete, 331 P.3d 431

Costales sued Rosete (a youth correctional officer) in his individual and official capacities, and the State entities DHS/OYS for negligent acts and for assaultive conduct by Rosete.
Plaintiff alleged Rosete sexually assaulted Costales in 2002 while she was a ward at HYCF; Count II alleged negligent protection by the State, and Counts III–IV alleged emotional distress and punitive damages.
At trial, evidence included testimony about other wards’ abuse, Imakyure’s systems investigation, and deposition/readings (including Olione’s) as probative notice of a dangerous condition; Rosete’s defense denied the assault.
The jury returned a mixed special verdict: fault percentages (Question 10) and damages (Question 12) that were mathematically inconsistent, leading to a post-trial request for a new trial.
The circuit court granted partial relief (new trial for Rosete in his individual capacity) and the ICA remanded for a new trial limited to allocation of fault and damages; Costales appealed seeking broader relief and challenging HRS 662-10 as a bar to concurrent judgments.
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the ICA judgment, affirmed the circuit court on remand, and limited retrial to reallocation of fault and damages with proper guidance on when State employees can be personally liable; it held HRS 662-10 does not bar contemporaneous judgments against Rosete and the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retrial should be limited to fault and damages allocations	Costales urged limited retrial per Dias to damages only	Rosete urged a full new trial to exclude prejudicial evidence	Remand limited to allocation of fault and damages with proper instructions
Whether the special verdict form was defective and caused irreconcilable conflict	Irreconcilable disparity between fault and damages	Form valid; not reversible error	Special verdict defect requires remand for limited retrial on liability and damages (not full new trial)
Whether HRS 662-10 bars contemporaneous judgments against State and Rosete	662-10 does not bar concurrent individual and official capacity judgments	66-210 bars subsequent claims	HRS 662-10 does not preclude contemporaneous judgments against Rosete in his individual capacity and the State
Whether admission of other defendants’ bad acts prejudiced Rosete	Evidence admissible to show notice of dangerous condition	Prejudicial spillover; limiting instructions lacking	Not reversible; evidence not shown to prejudice Rosete; proper limiting instructions absent regardless
Whether the trial court properly admitted Olione deposition and other evidence	Deposition evidentiary with proper notice	Door opened by Yoshimoto; some rules objections	Admissible as to notice and not reversible error on appeal

Dias v. Vanek, 67 Haw. 114 (Haw. 1984) (remedy for ambiguous verdict is a new trial limited to damages; term where damages uncontested may apply)
Miyamoto v. Lum, 104 Haw. 1 (Haw. 2004) (limits remand to contested issues if issues are sufficiently separate)
Ray v. Kapiolani Med. Specialists, 125 Haw. 253 (Haw. 2011) (irreconcilable verdicts; limited remand for damages where appropriate)
Kalilikane v. McCravey, 69 Haw. 145 (Haw. 1987) (irreconcilable answers in a special verdict require remedy)
Medeiros v. Kondo, 55 Haw. 499 (Haw. 1974) (distinguishes official vs. individual liability and malice burden)
Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Haw. 306 (Haw. 1995) (illustrates when a verdict is ambiguous and retrial may be warranted)
Dias v. Vanek, 67 Haw. 114 (Haw. 1984) (see above)