Kanahele v. HAN, 125 Haw. 446

Accident occurred December 16, 2003: Gregory Kanahele was struck in a Honolulu crosswalk by James Han; witnesses included Kanahele’s sister Trishalynn.
Petitioners filed a negligence action on April 5, 2006; plaintiffs claimed Gregory suffered severe injuries, pain, emotional distress, and loss of life enjoyment; Kanahele and Trishalynn alleged injuries.
Trial began February 25, 2008; Dr. Timothy McLaughlin testified about Gregory’s facial injuries and surgery; medical invoices totaled $12,280.41 with surgery costs of $7,924.49.
Jury verdict on March 5, 2008: Gregory injured; Han negligent; Kanahele and Trishalynn not negligent; at fault percentages: Han 45%, Gregory 45%, Kanahele 10%; special damages $12,280.41, general damages $0.
Court instructed that general damages cover pain, disability, and emotional distress; special damages are calculable from evidence; verdict form indicated inconsistency between special and general damages.
March 5, 2008: court directed review and later issued supplemental verdict form; jury awarded Gregory $1.00 for general damages after resubmission, to be read with $12,280.41 in special damages; Petitioners sought mistrial/new trial; motion denied; judgment entered June 30, 2008.
Appellate proceedings: ICA affirmed judgment in April 2011; Petitioners sought certiorari; Hawai`i Supreme Court granted and reversed ICA’s decision, remanding for a new trial on both special and general damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a zero general damages award with substantial special damages is improper.	Kanahele: zero general damages against substantial medical damages is inconsistent.	Han: court could correct inconsistency via resubmission.	Yes; inconsistency requires new trial on damages.
Whether the court abused discretion by resubmitting rather than ordering a new trial.	Petitioners: resubmission usurps jury’s prior deliberations and should have a new trial.	Respondent: resubmitting conserves resources and aligns with intent of verdict.	No abuse; resubmission proper to allow correction while jury was available.
Whether the $1.00 general damages award after resubmission was improper and inconsistent with the record.	Nominal award does not compensate for pain; inconsistent with $12,280.41 special damages.	Nominal award is permissible as a minimal affirmation of damages; not necessarily inconsistent.	Yes; $1.00 general damages was the symbolic equivalent of no award and required a new trial.
Whether transcripts were necessary to determine inconsistency of the verdict.	Appellants contended transcripts were needed to prove inconsistency.	Respondent argued the record was sufficient to show inconsistency.	Not necessary; record shown enough to establish inconsistency; ICA erred.

Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Hawai. 306, 901 P.2d 1285 (Haw. App. 1995) (inconsistent verdicts and new trial on general damages when zero general damages are awarded)
Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai. 188, 907 P.2d 774 (Haw. App. 1995) (zero general damages may be inconsistent with evidence or instructions)
Dias v. Vanek, 67 Haw. 114, 679 P.2d 133 (Haw. 1984) (permissible to re-submission to correct an ambiguous verdict)
Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts may resubmit for clarification when verdict is ambiguous)
Beard v. Flying J, Inc., 266 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2001) (retrial considerations when verdicts require clarification)
Bynum v. Magno, 106 Hawai`i 81, 101 P.3d 1149 (Haw. 2004) (distinguishes nominal damages and general damages in personal injury)
Ferreira v. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Ltd., 44 Haw. 567, 356 P.2d 651 (Haw. 1960) (nominal damages defined; limits to nominal amounts)
Minatoya v. Mousel, 2 Haw. App. 1, 625 P.2d 378 (Haw. App. 1981) (nominal damages concept and record sufficiency)
Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 98 Hawai`i 309, 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002) (nominal damages concept and damages remand)