Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kalauli v. Lum
Citations: 617 P.2d 1239; 1 Haw. App. 284; 1980 Haw. App. LEXIS 179Docket: NO. 6089
Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; October 22, 1980; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
In the case of Deedee Kalauli, a minor, represented by her mother Patricia L. Kalauli, against Betty Ann Lum, the plaintiffs-appellants appealed a jury verdict favoring the defendant. The appeal focused on whether the defendant was obligated to disclose the existence of a tape recording of a conversation between her investigator and an eyewitness before the trial. The court ruled that such disclosure was not required unless the plaintiffs had requested the information. The incident in question occurred on March 28, 1973, when three-year-old Deedee was struck by Lum's vehicle while accompanied by her cousin and younger brother. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 15, 1974, and did not engage in any discovery of the defendant. After a statement of readiness was filed, the defendant submitted written interrogatories and conducted depositions of the plaintiffs. During the trial, which began on January 20, 1975, the plaintiffs called three witnesses, including the cousin, who testified that Deedee entered the street from between two parked cars. Before the defendant's witnesses testified, the defendant sought to cross-examine the cousin regarding a potentially inconsistent statement recorded in the tape conversation. However, the jury was ultimately not informed about this conversation. Defendant's witnesses claimed that Deedee entered the street in front of the parked cars, leading to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to overturn the verdict, asserting that procedural law required the defendant to disclose the tape recording. Their argument hinged on the notion that access to this evidence would have bolstered their case by clarifying the circumstances of the accident. The court denied the motion, emphasizing the lack of jury exposure to the tape's content. The excerpt addresses the assumption that a change in the point of entry would not affect the point of impact, noting a lack of record evidence to support this assumption. It highlights the potential negative impact of a prior inconsistent statement on the plaintiffs if presented to the jury after the cousin's testimony. The plaintiffs could have benefited from knowledge of this statement only if it had been obtained before the cousin testified or if her testimony had differed. The plaintiffs' attorney acknowledged that awareness of the tape could have influenced the cousin’s testimony and improved their case. However, the record suggests her testimony was truthful. The rules of civil procedure mandate that parties must disclose relevant information unless privileged, but only upon request. The plaintiffs did not learn of the taped conversation due to their failure to inquire, not because the defendant withheld information. Consequently, the plaintiffs lack grounds for complaint. The ruling is affirmed, and the appellate record does not include a trial transcript. The court refrains from commenting on the insurance investigator’s actions or the lower court's decision regarding the cousin’s examination about the prior statement.