Steigman v. OUTRIGGER ENTERPRISES, INC.
267 P.3d 1238
Haw.2011Background
- Steigman sued Outrigger for a slip-and-fall on a wet hotel lanai; trial evidence showed slick surface, glossy finish, and possible prior incidents at the hotel.
- Jury found Outrigger not negligent; ICA affirmed via summary disposition.
- Hawaii's comparative negligence statute, HRS § 663-31, allows recovery even with some fault, reducing damages by fault percentage.
- Steigman argued the known or obvious danger defense conflicts with comparative negligence and sought a jury instruction aligned with Restatement principles.
- Trial court rejected proposed instruction; jury answered no negligence by Outrigger based on a special verdict form.
- This appeal raised whether the known or obvious danger defense remains viable in premises liability under Hawaii law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the known or obvious danger defense conflicts with comparative negligence. | Steigman argues the defense contradicts HRS § 663-31 and unjustly bars recovery. | Outrigger argues the defense precludes any duty or liability when danger is known or obvious. | Yes; court holds the defense is not viable under Hawaii's comparative negligence framework. |
| Whether the defense should inform duty analysis in premises liability. | Steigman contends Friedrich should be overruled so duty remains, not barred by obvious hazards. | Outrigger maintains the duty analysis can rely on the defense to negate liability. | Yes; the court overrules the defense as a duty defense in premises liability. |
| Whether the trial instruction on the defense was proper and necessary to remand. | Steigman contends the instruction was unsupported and conflicted with statute. | Outrigger contends acknowledgment of obvious danger supports a no-duty finding. | Instruction deemed reversible error; case remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd., 64 Haw. 401 (Haw. 1982) (legislative intent behind comparative negligence tempered fairness concerns)
- Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134 (Haw. 1969) (duty to reasonably safe premises for all anticipated entrants; abandons invitee/licensee distinctions)
- Friedrich v. Department of Transportation, 60 Haw. 32 (Haw. 1978) (open/open danger duty limits; later overruled as to complete no-duty rule)
- Bidar v. Amfac, Inc., 66 Haw. 547 (Haw. 1983) (towel-bar case; duty to maintain safe conditions; open questions for jury)
- Levy v. Kimball, 50 Haw. 497 (Haw. 1968) (degraded seawall; open/open danger analysis; path to duty variations)
- Rapoza v. Parnell, 83 Haw. 78 (Haw. 1996) (last clear chance abolished; contributory negligence concept clarified under §663-31)
- Gelber v. Sheraton-Hawaii Corp., 49 Haw. 327 (Haw. 1966) (open/obvious dangers; impact on contributory negligence analysis)