|
FUKE: [Inaudible crosstalk] any control and all that stuff. They are the landowners. So, it's
<br /> like
<br /> SALAS-FERGUSON: Yeah
<br /> FUKE: if somebody comes to your property and then they fall down, you know, so
<br /> SALAS-FERGUSON: So, that's a very, yeah, as you knowI don't, you are not, are you a, I
<br /> don't know if you are a lawyer, I cannot remember, I know you are the former planning director
<br /> but legal minds differ on all of these very factual complex situation. So, the thing you mentioned
<br /> about, you know, who is liable for certain access issues and all that kind of stuff, that's a whole
<br /> separate body of law, and it depends on that whole area, this, you know, various categories
<br /> involved in that whole premises liability area of the law. So, with this, there is a lot of gray things
<br /> happening that had happened when you were the planning director at the time with this, and there
<br /> is a lot of great stuff happening today with this decision. But to answer your question whether or
<br /> not the County has liability, we don't know until something happens, and the lawyers and judges
<br /> will decide it at that time. Potentially, the County is always liable, but right now it's owned by
<br /> him, and there is a condition that he provide public parking. And in the past, as you said, and I
<br /> think Alex said that the County has interpreted that to mean that the county, the public, has
<br /> unfettered access to that parking. Whether or not that's true today, I don't know, I haven't looked
<br /> into it, I haven't provided a legal opinion on it. There is a different Mayor, there is a different
<br /> Corporation Counsel, there is different lawsI'm sure the laws have changed since three years.
<br /> So, I don't know is answer to your question. I have to look into it, but potentially, yeah, you
<br /> know, possible.
<br /> KERN: If I may, Chair?
<br /> DEFRANCO: Yes.
<br /> KERN: I think part of that question is, does the same State statute apply to this public parking that
<br /> would require, that would apply to a public shoreline parcel, right,public shoreline access? Jean,
<br /> would that be
<br /> CAMPBELL: I can jump in a little bit. I think what you are referring to is our recreational use
<br /> statute, and that is a, it's a, I think it's Chapter 520, although I will admit, I didn't open it up, I
<br /> think it's Chapter 520 in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and it allows that—it was put in place
<br /> years ago to encourage landowners to open up property for recreational uses. I'm not aware that
<br /> any court has considered the recreational use statute for something like a parking lot. Its intent
<br /> was to open up, like Zendo said, shoreline access, mountain trails, those kinds of things. And so,
<br /> it talks about the public use for recreational purposes. And like I said, I think it's rather, the whole
<br /> chapter is rather untested in our courts, so there is a lot of uncertainty with regard to it, and so I
<br /> don't think any of us could answer nor do I really think it would be appropriate either for us to
<br /> answer about whether it would provide any kind of protections for a parking lot.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, so
<br /> 20
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|