380 F. Supp. 3d 1058
D. Haw.2019Background
- On March 1, 2015, Hawaii police officer Jody Buddemeyer struck and killed bicyclist Jeffrey Surnow; Buddemeyer later was convicted of negligent homicide (conviction on appeal).
- Buddemeyer had worked a “double-back” schedule: a day shift, ~7-hour break (during which he did not sleep), then an overnight shift; Plaintiffs allege he had been awake ~24 hours before the collision.
- Plaintiffs sued Buddemeyer, the County of Hawaii, and the County of Hawaii Police Department asserting negligence/wrongful death, vicarious liability, emotional distress, derivative claims, and punitive damages.
- Buddemeyer moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claim against him; the County moved under Rule 12(c) to (1) bar punitive damages against the County and (2) dismiss the County Police Department as a separate entity.
- The court denied Buddemeyer’s summary-judgment motion as to punitive damages (finding triable issues of fact about wanton/grossly negligent conduct), granted the County’s motion barring punitive damages against the County, and dismissed the County Police Department as not a separate legal entity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages against Buddemeyer should be dismissed at summary judgment | Buddemeyer’s long wakefulness, known risk from double-back shifts, and choosing to work rather than rest create evidence of wanton/gross negligence supporting punitive damages | Falling asleep while driving alone is insufficient for punitive damages; no clear-and-convincing evidence of conscious indifference | Denied summary judgment — a genuine issue of material fact exists whether Buddemeyer’s conduct rises to wanton/gross negligence supporting punitive damages |
| Whether punitive damages are available against the County | The County’s double-back practice is a County policy and Plaintiffs argued punitive damages should be available for direct municipal acts | County: municipalities are not subject to punitive damages under Hawaii law | Granted — punitive damages against the County dismissed with prejudice (public policy bars punitive damages against municipalities) |
| Whether the County of Hawaii Police Department is a separate legal entity | Plaintiffs originally named the Police Department separately | County: the Police Department is a department of the County, not a separate legal entity | Granted — claims against the County Police Department dismissed with prejudice as duplicative |
| Evidentiary threshold at summary judgment for punitive damages | Plaintiffs need only show a genuine issue of material fact that they could ultimately prove wanton conduct by clear and convincing evidence | Defendants contended Plaintiffs must produce clear-and-convincing evidence at summary judgment | Court: Plaintiffs need only raise a genuine dispute of material fact (not meet clear-and-convincing proof at summary judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Masaki v. Gen. Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 780 P.2d 566 (Haw. 1989) (defines punitive damages standard under Hawaii law; requires conscious wrongdoing or wanton conduct)
- Lauer v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Honolulu, 57 Haw. 390, 557 P.2d 1334 (Haw. 1976) (municipal corporations are not liable for punitive damages as a matter of public policy)
- Briner v. Hyslop, 337 N.W.2d 858 (Iowa 1983) (discusses when fatigue-related driving can support punitive damages where driver knew risk and persisted)
- Burke v. Maassen, 904 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1990) (falling asleep while driving, without more, typically insufficient for punitive damages)
- Ditto v. McCurdy, 86 Haw. 84, 947 P.2d 952 (Haw. 1997) (recognizes gross negligence as within punitive damages standard)