308 P.3d 891
Haw.2013Background
- Fry accessed the Bally Center rooftop and entered an exhaust duct; she became trapped and died from hyperthermia and respiratory compromise.
- Plaintiffs, Fry’s parents, sued Ala Moana for wrongful death and related premises liability and care-related claims; Circuit Court granted summary judgment for Ala Moana on premises liability and certain claims; ICA affirmed.
- Court recognized two potential duties for a landowner open to the public: (a) general premises liability to reasonably anticipated persons on the premises, and (b) duties under Restatement sections 338 (control of dangerous forces) and 314A(3) (duty to aid for public invitees) if applicable; genuine disputes remained as to these duties.
- Fry’s entry to and presence on the rooftop were contested; evidence suggested Fry was not reasonably anticipated and her entry into the exhaust duct was not reasonably foreseeable, leading to no breach of general premises duty; however, material facts existed as to whether Ala Moana breached duties under sections 338 and 314A(3) and whether such breaches were substantial factors in Fry’s injuries/death.
- Autopsy attributed death to hyperthermia and respiratory compromise; stoves in Food Court remained on during part of Fry’s entrapment; emergency response timing and actions by Ala Moana security were at issue; Fry was pregnant at the time of death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ala Moana owed a general premises liability duty to Fry. | Winfrey argues Fry was known or reasonably anticipated on premises. | Ala Moana contends Fry was an unanticipated trespasser; no duty under Pickard. | No general premises duty; Fry not reasonably anticipated; summary judgment for Ala Moana on this claim. |
| Whether Ala Moana owed a duty to control a dangerous force to prevent harm (Restatement § 338). | Fry’s proximity to heat/smoke created a foreseeable risk; duty to control exists. | No breach shown; complex factual questions remain. | Genuine issues of material fact exist as to breach under § 338; remand. |
| Whether Ala Moana owed a duty to aid/public first aid under Restatement § 314A(3). | Ala Moana invited the public and had a duty to aid once Fry was ill or injured. | No duty under § 314A(3) because Fry’s entry and status as a public invitee are disputed. | Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Fry entered in response to invitation and whether breach occurred; remand. |
| Whether Good Samaritan statutes and Moyle shield Ala Moana from liability. | Statutes do not bar claims for failure to aid given a duty to act. | Statutes apply to certain emergency aid scenarios. | Inapplicable; not shielding Ala Moana from duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickard v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (Haw. 1969) (duty to reasonably care for safety of all reasonably anticipated on premises; abolishes status distinctions)
- Kaczmarczyk v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 65 Haw. 612, 656 P.2d 89 (Haw. 1982) (duty to known on premises; reasonable care required after awareness of presence)
- Farrior v. Payton, 57 Haw. 620, 562 P.2d 779 (Haw. 1977) (section 338 moving force duty; control to prevent harm)
- Doe v. Grosvenor Props. (Haw.) Ltd., 73 Haw. 158, 829 P.2d 512 (Haw. 1992) (interpretation of 314A(3) and invitee status in context of open-to-public land)
- Moyle v. Y & Y Hyup Shin Corp., 118 Haw. 385, 191 P.3d 1062 (Haw. 2008) (Good Samaritan statutes; limits on liability for failure to aid in certain contexts)
- Lee v. Corregedore, 83 Haw. 154, 925 P.2d 324 (Haw. 1996) (limits on duty to intervene; distinguishing special relationships)