COM 0687.078 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As spokesman for the Makalei Estates Community Association, 1 assure you it's not our intention to block the development of Pala~~? ~Lik~ ypp~ "Y~ , { nize the value of the promised infrastructure. But previous promises haven t been delivered and requirements have been ignored. Ourt~'concerns pertain to the safety and liability issues of Makalei Drive, and these dan't be-alleviated by further empty promises. Ordinance 93-45 required a specific road on the property owned by the developer, not on non-owned land or land not covered by the Ordinance. Building to the stated standards would have required a series of switchbacks resulting in fewer lots to sell. The road that was buiR maximized profd at the expense of public safety. That's the same decision Ford Motor Company made in the Pinto and Mustang II gas tank cases that resulted in compensatory and punitive damages of hundreds of millions of dollars. As an insurance claims professional I was involved in one of those cases that resulted in a jury verdict of $106.8 M. As background, I am a senior vice president of an international firm providing litigation services to attorneys and insurance companies. I have lectured and conducted seminars domestically to countless claims offices and law firms, and internationally at Lloyds of London and the Institute of London Undenroriters. I've been qualified as an expert witness in various courts. It is my professional opinion the County faces potential liability for negligent design and maintenance of Makalei Drive if it accepts dedication of the road. You will find attached a legal opinion dated June 1 which I hope you will read, consider, and discuss. The County owes a duty to the public to design and maintain reasonably safe highways, and three cases are cited supporting that statement. Government officials are generally protected form personal liability for negligent acts or omissions in the scope and course of employment, and they should be, by the doctrine of qualified immunity. However, that immunity can be lost where the offiaal acts maliciously, intentionally, with gross negligence, or in knowing violation of the law. Three supporting cases are cited. The road has been constructed in violation of the County of Hawaii Zoning Code and Subdivision Code and supporting information is supplied. If the County accepts dedication of the road as a collector, the County will be in further violation of its own codes and ordinances and that could eliminate the qualified immunity protection of government officials. At the May 16 meeting, Mr. Yuen confirmed Makalei Drive is a minor road and said grade standards could be exceeded, so the road may not really be in violation. But he failed to state what the "unusual conditions" allowed by the Subdivision Code are that apply here. Fommer councilman Jim Rath stated it clearly in a letter in the County file. The only unusual condition is that it was then Nansay, and now Hiluhilu, doing the asking. The County's file is devoid of any