Home

ADA

1. Hi Lift 215 at the time of the accident stated that he saw both green flags before he lifted the container involved in the accident A amp B Fleet Services argues that because there was no evidence that Tanaka was misled by the green flags its alleged negligence in installing a top handler Hi Lift combination without indicator lights could not have caused the accident Kealoha however provided evidence that conflicted with A amp B Fleet Services claim Stone testified in his deposition that Top Handler 102 was designed to operate with indicator lights b Jecause the operation of the mechanical flags L ine a alone will not necessarily de ull twist lock engagement Stone s testimony provides evidence that the mechanical flags were an imprecise indicator and would not necessarily have provided an accurate display of the actual twist lock position Thus even if Tanaka had visually confirmed the display of the oY a green flags the twist locks may not have been fully engaged Moreover Kealoha provided a declaration from Richard Gill Gill an expert in human factors engineering which supported Kealoha s claim that the lack of indicator lights could have caused the accident Bes The indicator lights are easier for the operator to see they also create a
2. Bro disconn contractors began u to that time attach and detach the top handlers Originally dlers to the 30 ton Hi Lifts thers decided to outsource ecting the top handl sing A amp B Fle the top handlers to dicators er Young Brothers emp the task of had attached the after 1990 attach loyees Sometime Young p ing and to outside mechanics or such as A amp B Fleet t Services Young Brother had used another company A amp B Fleet Services had all connected Top 215 the time period each was perf A common task A amp B Fleet Services performed There was no resulting in a combina E Services In 2005 Young Brothers to perform the task of attaching the Hi Lifts at its Kawaihae terminal tion with no orming this ttaching and removing the top written contract between Young Brothers an Fleet Services regarding these services Prior HT amp T to HT amp T Handler 102 to Hi Lift ts Young Brothers and indicator ligh during task handler was the most for Young Brothers d A amp B needed to attach the top handle r 4 When Young Brothers A amp B Fleet it would call NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Services and arrange to meet at the terminal A amp B Fle t Services E did not have or refer t
3. alleged negligence and tiff bears the burden We agree the plain the defendant s alleg ff s injury As the plaintiff need onl 69 marks and citation omi Knodle Haw at tted th d negligence was a the Hawai i Supreme y show that the actor in causing 390 742 P 2d at 386 The presence defendant s conduct tween injury i e whether th e more likely than not a substantial complain 385 742 citation omitted mo are such tha ed of is normally a question for P 2d at 383 Pa factor internal Accordingly tion for summary judgment is only appropriat LS in th quotation marks determinin e breach of duty was the harm Id at causing e jury brackets and g causation on a where the facts t they will support only one reasonable inference NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Id at 389 742 P 2d at 385 We conclude that the record in this case raises genuine issues of material fact relating to the legal cause of Kealoha s injuries and that the Circuit Court erred in Frey for summary judgment on granting A amp B Fleet Services first motion the issue of causation A amp B Fleet Services argues that its actions could not Pg have caused Kealoha s injuries because Tanaka the operator of
4. is responsibility to fety violations equipment and to recommend repairs Dwayne Coit stated t he was instructed as an A amp B Fleet Se a inform his supervisor if he encountered any unsafe condition in e rvices mechanic to ustomer s equipment and the supervisor would then determine ther to take the equipment out of service When viewed in the light most favorable to Kealoha nuine were g L issues of material fact of A amp B Fleet Services contractual respons safety recommendations and advice to Young exten expert t to which tise in disput favor duty of care tes in of A amp B concerning the scope ibilities to provide Brothers and the Young Brothers relied on A amp B Fleet Services of these factual safety matters The existenc turn preclude the granting o Fleet Services based on the c pag f summary judgment in laimed absence of a A amp B Fleet Services argues that it did not owe Kealoha any legal duty because the subject accident was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law We disag who are FEC Regardless of its source a duty is only owed to those na foreseeably endangered by the conduct and only with respect to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct or omission unreasonably dangerous Doe Parents No 1
5. 93 Hawai i 477 487 6 P 3d 349 359 2000 Phillips v Cricket Lighters 841 A 2d 1000 1008 10 Pa 2003 ILs E aa In this case Kealoha s allegations of negligence arise from A amp B Fleet Services actions in installing Top Handler 102 onto Hi Lift 215 Although no written contract existed Young Brothers hired A amp B Fleet Services to attach its top handlers to its Hi Lifts Kealoha s theory of liability is that A amp B Fleet NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Services was negligent in attaching Top Handler 102 to Hi Lift 215 because this top handler Hi Lift combination was incompatible in that it did not permit the use of indicator lights thereby creating a safety risk A amp B Fleet Services argues that its responsibilities under its agreement with Young Brothers was limited to simply performing the physical task of connecting a specific top handler to a specific Hi Lift A amp B Fleet Services contends that it was not responsible for installing safety devices or making safety FY oe recommendations It therefore claims that it owned no legal duty to Kealoha The record however contains evidence conflic ting with A amp B Fleet Services claims regarding the limited scope of its responsibilities under its agreement with Young Brothers Kealoha presented evidence that A am
6. Services matter of law that neg TO causal connection between neg In Services arg Kealoha to Handler 102 Iki to Brothers was simply asked by Young Bro connect two pieces of equipment by Kealoha were an unforeseeable risk arising out engagement with Young Brothers Fleet Services its second mot Specifically that there were second motion f warn Young Brothers Hi Lift 215 A amp B p no genuine issues of material Lift without t granted A amp B F concluding Specifically ligence is speculative and unsupported by facts presented the Court and there is an absenc thers indicator lights and Kealoha s that fact in di is entitled to judgmen Kealoha s theory of evidenc A amp B Fleet Services ligence and the subject accident tion for summary judgment ued that it did not owe a legal duty o or to refuse to at as requested by Yo Fleet Services arg to perf that orm ap and the inju The Circuit Court leet Services First spute and t as a of to show any alleged A amp B Fleet f care to tach Top ung ued that it hysical task ries sustained of this limited granted A amp B or summary judgment de A termining act in dispute NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER and that A amp B Fleet Serv
7. factors for the accident t he top handler was inspected and found to have a faulty twist lock green flag indicator with the right side only The left side twist lock green flag indicator was inspected and no discrepancies found This would indicate that the machine operator may have seen the faulty green flag indicator on the right side and did not confirm the partial rotation of the left side green flag indicator and lifted the container the left side being the true representation of the twist lock The result was the release of the container 1 a faulty right side flag indicator and 2 machine operator i error because the operator did not conf Ultimately Kapule concluded that the root cause of the accident irm the twist lock green flag indicator to the left side of the top handler attachment was operator error Although there are several types of hi lifts with top handler attachments Machine Operators are trained to confirm the twist locks are secured prior to lifting a container Therefore in my investigation the facts indicate the left side of the top handler attachment of the Hi Lift 215 was operating as designed If the Machine Operator visually inspected the left side twist lock green flag indicator prior to lifting the 40 foot Matson container he would have found the twist lock did not fully rotate The root cause of the incident was operator error
8. v State De 2002 omitted The test for foreseeability is t of Educ 100 Hawai i 34 72 58 P 3d 545 583 internal quotation marks brackets and citations whether there is some probability of harm sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it harm increases As the gravity of the possible the apparent likelihood of its occurrence need be correspondingly less to generate a duty of And against this probability and gravity of precaution 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the risk must be balanced in every case the utility of the type of conduct in question Knodle 69 Haw at 388 742 P 2d at 385 internal quotation marks brackets footnote and citations omitted Here A amp B Fleet Services alleged negligence arises from its conduct 215 indicator operator if the shipping container being lif secured lights mm Top Handler 1 Hi Lift wi th in ins an incompatible combination that did no a saf indicator Hi Lift 215 did not have with Hi Lift 215 was equipped with indicator light that Lift could be attached to the Hi Lift 215 combination indicator lights The service manual for Top Handler 102 speci lists Hi Lift models that were compatibl and Hi Lift 215 not among Handler 10 evidence th of determin Accord
9. Despite his conclusions relating to the causes of the accident Kapule admitted during a deposition that 1 he did not know cag whether the right side flag indicator was faulty at the time of the accident and 2 Tanaka had told him that Tanaka confirmed that both engaged green flags indicated that the locks were fully NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER A amp B Fleet Services an incompatible Hi Lift indicator warning lights dropped on his foot 3 judgment judgment could be granted judgment existed between its al i as In his First Amended Complaint Kealoha alleged that 1 negligently installed Top Handler 102 to 215 which lacked the necessary causing a shipping container to be 2 negligently failed to follow the directives of the Hyster manufacturer s manual and international safety standards regarding indicator lights on top handlers and knowingly bypassed a critical safety system A amp B Fleet Services filed two motions for summary each asserting alternative grounds on which summary In its first motion for summary A amp B Fleet Services argued that no causal connection lLleged negligent conduct i e attaching Top Handler 102 to a Hi injuries The Circuit Court Motion for Summary Judgment there is no genuine issue of material A amp B Fleet
10. FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER not securely attached to the top handler and may fall Given the size of the shipping containers being moved by the Top Handler 102 Hi Lift 21 resulting 5 combination the gravity from a container breaking loose and We reject A amp B Fleet Kealoha s negligent conduct Based on Kea of genuine issues o Services owed a duty of care to Kealoha injuries were not a foreseeabl loha produced sufficient evidence Services claim that as mat of the possible harm FY alling is great ter of law the record before resul this court to establish material fact regarding whether A amp B Fleet t of its alleged that the existence we conclude We therefore conclude that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of A amp B Fleet Services on this issue Kealoha argues that determining on connection between A amp B Fleet Services Kealoha s injury In a negligence action g that of establishin legal cause of the plainti Court has explained defendant s negligence was a substantial plaintiff s inj internal quo tation of a reasonably and the plaintiff s summary judgment uries close connection b Til that there the Circuit Court erred in was no causal
11. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER NO 29806 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I REGINALD KEALOHA Plaintiff Appellant v KAHULUI TRUCKING amp STORAGE INC dba A amp B FLEET SERVICES ISLAND EQUIPMENT INC dba AMERICAN MACHINERY and DOE ENTITIES 1 20 Defendants Appellees APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT CIVIL NO 06 1 224 MEMORANDUM OPINION By Nakamura Chief Judge and Foley and Leonard JJ In this personal injury case Plaintiff Appellant Reginald Kealoha Kealoha appeals from the Judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit Circuit Court in favor of Defendant Appellee Kahului Trucking amp Storage Inc dba A amp B Fleet Services A amp B Fleet Services A amp B Fleet Services had been hired by Kealoha s employer Young Brothers Ltd Young Brothers to attach a top handler to a 30 ton Hi Lift so that it could be used to lift 40 foot shipping containers Kealoha was injured when a shipping container being lifted broke lose and fell on his left foot and ankle 1 The Honorable Elizabeth A Strance presided NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The Circuit orders granting two separate motions by A amp B Fleet Services based on the lack of causation the alternative ground that of care t
12. awai i 282 291 308 P 3d 911 920 2013 Whether a defendant owes an injured plaintiff a duty of care is generally a question of law to be determined by the court See Knodle v Waikiki Gateway Hotel Inc 69 Haw 376 385 742 P 2d 377 383 1987 pg The question of whether a duty is owed must be decided oY on a case by case basis and turns on the facts and circumstances presented by the particular case Ah Mook Sang 130 Hawai i at 291 308 P 3d at 920 In determining whether to impose a duty of Py care in a particular case the following factors are relevant whether a special relationship exists the foreseeability of harm to the injured party the degr of certainty that the injured party suffered injury the closeness of the connection between the defendants conduct and the injury suffered the moral blame attached to the defendants the policy of preventing harm the extent of the burden to the defendants and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach and the availability cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved Blair 95 Hawai i at 260 21 P 3d at 465 ellipses and citation omitted format altered Where disputes arise regarding facts necessary to determine whether a legal duty of care exists or should be imposed summary judgment is inappropriate See Crichfield v Grand Wailea Co
13. ess ler 102 to Hi Lift 215 before leaving the only Hi Lift available for Young Bro re th thers employee the okay Top Handler 102 to Hi Lift 215 30 ton Hi Lifts were equ ts to which Top Handler 1 Coit attached Top Handler 102 to Hi Lift After the top handler was attached Young Brothers requested that A amp B In mechanic would the top handler alignment of Hi Lift use at ipped ton Hi Lift that 02 this th the orange cord and plug on Top Handler 102 tor lights and the Roland quipment was and drove away dler 102 Hi Lift 215 for E E a feet the 5 He was relieved in the Tanaka oot shipping container Young Brothers barge to a acing metal tainer so it could be properly left side 1 to the NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER pier deck Kealoha s looked at BT xg The right side fell quickly thereafter crushing left foot and ankle Tanaka stated that before lifting the container he the two mechanical green flag indicators on either side L of Top Handler 102 and confirmed that it was fully secured Young Brothers Safety and Environmental Manager Nathan Kapule Kapule investigated the incident According to Kapule s incident report Kapule s report identified two causal
14. gh indicator light dashboard whether Top Handler 102 was securely attached to Top Handler 102 Hi Li the container ft 2 of the indicator light to rely on mechanical green flag indicators located a system to lift large shipping containers to permit the use of light warning system when attached to L ul sys ts on the Hi Lift tem would inform the ly engaged with and 5 combination did being lifted Because the not permit the use the operator of Hi Lift 215 had the ends NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER of Top Handler 102 to determine if Top Handler 102 was fully engaged On Handler 102 the day in question to Hi Lift 215 A amp B Fleet Services attached Top While the Top Handl er 102 Hi Lift 215 combination was being used to move an empty 40 foot shipping container ground Young Brot brand 30 ton lift truck the container broke loose and Bz thers purchased in 1980 which can be convert and transport forks and connecting a sh on to the top of the locks twist corners of the container seated in the corners of the cont pulls a lever which causes the twist locks to turn twist locks have ro and the top handler As a safet Handler 102 have mechanical synchronously with dis
15. h unlike Hi Lift 21 op Handler 102 ld be plugged 5 had their dashboards tO p u When the such Hi Lift dicator lights on the dashboard would lly engaged NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The indicator lights served beyond the mechanical green operator that the The indicator dler 102 Hi Lift Han twist ligh 21 equipped with an ou as an additional flags to indicate to locks were fully engaged ts could not be used 5 combination tlet to which the orange cord saf ty feature the Hi Lift in 2 on the Top Hi Lift 15 was not Top Handler 102 could be connected and did not have indicator lights on its dashboard Hi Lift 215 was sold with a prior generation top handler attachment that had indicator lights on a panel that could be attached to or separated from the Hi Lift Young Brothers had routinely used top handlers attached to 30 ton Hi Lifts with no indicator lights Young Brothers Lead Operator Quinten Chong Chong recalled that this combination had been used at Kawaiahae terminal where Kealoha was employed since at least 1990 when Chong was first stationed there Chong did not experience problems lights with this combination the the resulting from or the use of lack of indicator mechanical green flag in top han
16. ices was matter of law Based on its orders grant and second motions for summary judgment entered Judgment in favor of A amp B Fleet Services on April 6 ting A amp B Fleet Services entitled to judgment as a first Kealoha appeals from this Judgment Keal de no at termin tC OWE taching Top Handler negligen We review a judgment de novo P 3d 689 697 2005 trial court 267 1996 Summary j depositions answers to together with the affidavit DISCUSSION oha argues that ing on summary judgment him any legal duty o 102 Querubin v using Iddings v Mee Lee udgment interrogatories ts if that ce and Kealoha s injury any genuine issue as to any mat is entitled to a judgme Civil Procedure Rule 56 of that fact would have one of the essential elements of a cause o Blair v Ing internal quotat asserted by the parties P 3d 452 457 2001 omitted ag from the evidence the non moving party nt aS a matter of 2000 c the format altered must be viewed in Kamaka v terial act effect of The evidence and the Goodsill 176 P 3d Stifel 117 Hawai i 92 we must the light words y therefrom in motion Querubin 104 quote format and citation omitted 8 Thronas A the Circuit Court A a
17. ing to Larry Stone Handler 10 flags and mechanical lock engagement twist lock lights come on at near full engagement n O 2 was not 2 is equipped with mechanical at the indicator ety feature designed lights in its dashboard however the models listed flags ing whether indicator t permit the ted was no tO warn a talling Top Handler 102 onto Hi Lift L02 was designed to be installed feat A prior generation top handler sol ts on a panel The Top Handler 102 Hi the use of Hi Lift t properly onto a ure which d le with Top Handl did not permit the use of fically 02 er 1 Although Top Kealoha presented lights provide a more accurate means the twist locks are fully engaged Stone a retired Hyster engineer Top intended to be used with just mechanical lights b ecause the operation of the flags alone will not necessarily define a full twist When the lights are used with it then the When Hi Lift 215 was originally delivered with a top handler desi could be aft The cl the Hi Lift to Young Brothers it was delivered gned with indicator lights on a panel that ttached to Hi Lift 215 lear purpose of the indicator lights is tO warn t operator that a shipping container being lifted is 12 NOT
18. measure of redundancy which was critical in this case due to the fact that one of the mechanical flags was out of alignment In addition the mechanical indicator flags can be easily misread and violate basic human factors design principles That is the sole purpose of the mechanical indicator flag is to convey to the operator a discrete status i e safe vs unsafe pertaining to the container tophandler connection Thus in accordance with basic human factors design principles the display i e the device that tells the operator the status of the machine should only display status 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER cannot accident is lifted off inspection of four pockets at handler engages corner pockets of the cont system the cont properly engaged when it was lifted info rmation i e safe vs unsafe However the mechanical indicator flag system displays continuous information or information that varies continuously depe thro complexity of the operator s task nding o n ugh how many degrees the flag rotates Such a design needlessly increases the increases the likelihood of the operator misreading the display depending on how far it has rotated chances of a daily error due to the flag sys partially out of alignment subj incr The ect tophandler ementally i e such as on There is no marker or on the flags that
19. mp B Fleet Services did 1 care with respec to Hi Lift 215 was no causal connection between A amp B Fleet Services and the Circuit Court 2009 t erred in t to i 2 CS the same standard appl 82 Hawai i 1 5 56 conduct in that there alleged trial court s grant or denial of summary 107 Hawai i 48 licable to the 919 P 2d 263 is proper if the pleadings 109 and admissions on file show that there is no and E ag and Tac establishing or ref ie law the in ligh 9 L038 view all of the evidence and the in t most Anderson Hawai i 247 that the moving party Rules of t is material if proof E uting ue action or defense 95 Hawai i 252 2 tion marks and citation feren Quin 2008 feren ces drawn favorable to n amp In other ces drawn 109 P 3d at 697 most favorable to the party opposing the 107 Hawai i at 56 block NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Ts Msg In granting A amp B Fleet Services second motion for summary judgment the Circuit Court ruled that A amp B Fleet Services did not owe a duty of care to Kealoha It is well settled that a negligence action lies only where there is a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff Ah Mook Sang v Clark 130 H
20. o Kealoha On appeal in determining on summary judgment that Kealoha claims Court s Judgment pg The first motion for summary judgment The A amp B Fleet was entered pursuan or summary judgment Lo led ce i Ae was second motion was based on connection between A amp B Fleet Services a 1 Services did not owe a duty that the Circuit Court erred there was no causal and lleged negligenc Kealoha s injuries and 2 A amp B Fleet Services did not owe Kealoha a duty of care We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether A amp B Fleet Services owed Kealoha a duty of negligence caused Keal oha s injuries W care and whether A amp B Fleet Servic s alleged a therefore vacate the Circuit Court s Judgment and remand the case for further proceedings Kealoha was longshoremen at Young BACKGROUND Tg A employed by Yo Brothers ung Brothers as a marine terminal in Kawaihae red Young Brothers O02 to His r 102 is an attachment that permits Hi Hawai i On the day Kealoha was inju requested that A amp B Fleet Services connect Top Handler 1 Lift 215 Top Handle Lift 215 a 30 ton forklift from the top Top Handler 102 was designed an electrical indicator compatible Hi Lifts The indicator ligh Hi Lift operator throu
21. o the manufacturer s service manual to de at termine how taching the check with the Hi Lift operator to make sure that was functioning the mechanical green flags On March 26 Fleet Services connect 215 a 30 ton Hi Lift the time with indicator lights was equipped with indicator light could be attached but Young Brothers did not request combination indicator lights which were designed to facilitate the use of an indicat system A amp B Fleet Services mechanics Dwayne Coit top handler None of Young Brot to connect Top Hand the A amp B Fleet Services which would include checking the 2006 was Young Brothers had a 35 Because Hi Lift 215 was not equipped wit was left unconnected thers Sidney Salboro 215 in the morning person operating Hi Lift Salboro 215 Shimaoka Shimaoka operating correctly Shimaoka operated the Top Han four hours without any problems af Around 3 p m wi Tanaka transported the container approximately 75 coning station where Kealoha was responsible for pl cones on the bottom of stacked on the barge of the container released from Top Handler 102 and fel checked to make su gave the mechanics ternoon by Young Brothers operator Patrick Tanaka Tanaka engaged an empty 40 f th the intent to load the container ona the cont During the coning proc
22. p B Fleet Services responsibilities went beyond simply physically connecting equipment and included providing advice and assistance on safety matters According to Eddie Magaoay a Young Brothers employee Young Brothers relied upon the A amp B Fleet Services mechanics to ae pnd inform Young Brothers of sa ety issues they encountered in installing the top handlers and to make recommendations regarding safety matters Qi Now when A amp B Fleet Service s did the hookup of the top handler to the Hi Lift did you have any did Young Brothers have any expectation as to what the scope of their services would be For example if it didn t have indicator lights did you expect them to to say hey you need indicator lights A Yes We relied on them to tell us what they find of their finding Q Right A Of their recommendation Oe Yeah A You know whether it needs to be repaired replaced We rely on them because we can t be there to 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Emphasis A amp B Fleet Ox A Right To make those calls added In addition Services mechanic it was part h notify Young Brothers if he found any sa concerning th a Young Brothers wh there that may need to be done on the equipment according to Edmund Baquiring a senior
23. played and visible to the Hi Lift operator ipping containers on the flags are fully displayed top handler ted into a machine that container and aligns four top handler with pockets crushing Kealoha s left foot and ankle fell to the the Hi Lift 215 a Hyster Hi Lift 215 is a forklift attachment To the Hi Lift operator lowers the top handl lock can be used to lift large shipping containers by removing the Hi Lift s transport the er ing mechanisms loca Once ty mechanism the turning of the twis tainer tated ninety degrees is securely attached the green flag they are left and righ indicato locks Wh he twis locks are the Hi Lift ag Tour the aligned and ted at operator Once the fully engaged to the container t ends of Top rs which turn to become n the green it indicates that the twis turned ninety degrees and are fully engaged locks have Top Handler 102 was purchased by Young Brothers in the mid 1980s was equipped with an into newer model Hi Lifts indicator lights mou orange cord from Top Handler 102 was connected models activate and light u two green in after it had purchased Hi Lift 215 nted within 3 orange cord and plug that p when the twist locks were f Y cou whic
24. ssue of causation CONCLUSION s Judgment and its orders Court motion for We 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion DATED Honolulu On the briefs Katharine M Nohr Preston Easley Richard K Griffith for Plaintiff Appellant Jeffrey H K Sia Ronald m Shigekane Diane W Wong Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia amp Nakamura LLLP for Defendant Appellee Hawai i 16 October 29 2013 Chief Judge Associate Judge Associate Judge
25. tells the operator that the twistlocks have fully rotated no precise mechanism for distinguishing partial twistlock rotation from full twistlock rotation is a crude system at best turn incrementally the indicator flags also The flag sys and increases the tem being the guideline tem offers It As the twistlocks turn twist lock system is designed so that an operator to prevent accident flags indicated fact regardless o tally disengage the twist locks once the container the ground Kealoha presented evidence that the container after the incident revealed that the the corners of the container to which the top were not damaged The absence of damage to the tainer and the design of the twist lock tal disengagement by the operator while tainer is in the air indicate that the container was not L f what the green We conclude that there are genuine issues of material regarding whet ther A amp B Fleet installing Top Handler 102 ont that did not permit safety feature Circuit Court erred in summary judgment on granting summary judgment in favor of A amp B Fleet Services We vacate the Circuit t Services to Hi Lift 215 t the use of indicator lights alleged negligence in a combination a designed the caused Kealoha s injuries Therefore granting A amp B Fleet Services the i

ADA

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents