339 P.3d 679
Haw.2014Background
- Molfino purchased TMK 3-2-002-035 on Hawaii island for subdivision and reviewed the TMK file, noting missing letters from April 2000 and May 2000 discussing pre-existing lots.
- June 2004 Planning Director Yuen responded that the property contained two pre-existing lots, with the missing 2000 letters not in the file at that time.
- Later, the May 2000 letter resurfaced and the Planning Department granted a six-lot subdivision for Pruglo, erroneously including a seventh lot after an inadvertent map revision.
- Molfino sued Yuen and the County for negligence, alleging a duty to maintain accurate TMK records caused damages; the County moved for summary judgment asserting no duty.
- The ICA affirmed summary judgment, holding no statutory basis under Rule 1-8 or HRS Chapter 92F for a duty to maintain records with perfect accuracy.
- The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding policy considerations oppose creating a common-law duty to maintain government records and that Chapter 92F does not impose such tort liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a duty to maintain TMK records. | Molfino relies on Rule 1-8 and 92F to impose a duty. | No duty exists; maintaining records is not required by Rule 1-8 or 92F and imposing one is impractical. | No duty recognized; policy disallows common-law liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 98 Hawai‘i 296 (Haw. 2002) (court reluctant to impose new tort duties)
- Cootey v. Sun. Inv., Inc., 68 Haw. 480 (Haw. 1986) (government not insurer of all dangers; public policy limits liability)
- Nuuanu Valley Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 119 Hawai‘i 90 (Haw. 2008) (requires access to records actually maintained)
- SHOPO v. State, Univ. of Hawai’i Chapter, 83 Hawai‘i 378 (Haw. 1996) (comports with access requirements of 92F)
- Kellberg v. Yuen, 131 Hawai‘i 513 (Haw. 2014) (affirmed absence of common-law duty to maintain records perfectly)