2008-05-22_Old_Laupahoehoe_Access_Road

Home

Honorable Dominic Yagong May 22, 2008 Page 2 intelligence, but are known to the County, if the County has "impliedly invited"people to enter the land for known activities. Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, 73 Hawaii 359 (1992). In this case, we assume that the County is aware of existing rockfall hazards. We also assume, for discussion only, that the County would have a duty to warn users of the OLAR about the rockfall hazard, if the road were opened for recreational walking. Such situations inevitably invite comparison to the tragic Sacred Falls State Park rockfall of Mother's Day 1999. On that date, some 30 cubic yards of rock and debris fell where a crowd of hikers were enjoying the park. Eight people were killed, and fifty others injured among the tons of boulders and debris. The State was sued, and was found liable at trial, despite nine (9) warning signs at the trailhead. In news release No. 2002-54, October 20, 2002, then State Attorney General Earl Anzai, announcing that they would appeal, said: . . . the signs specifically warned of the danger of falling rocks, warned that falling rocks had caused death and injuries in the past, and warned that if the public were to proceed past the signs, they should do so only at their own risk, and they should use extreme caution. At the gated entrance the sign warned "The upper end of the trail and the falls area are bordered by rocky cliffs and are subject to FALLING ROCKS and ROCK SLIDES. Use trail at your own risk." Another sign posted near the pedestrian gate warned: "FALLING ROCKS ARE DANGEROUS. THEY HAVE RESULTED IN DEATH AND INJURIES HERE. ROCKS FALL AT UNPREDICTABLE TIMES AND WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING." Along with the other seven signs the public was adequately warned of the dangers of falling rock at the park, and the State therefore should not be liable for the deaths and injuries that resulted from the rock fall tragedy. Ultimately the State settled for$8.56 million. The trial court had noted poor maintenance, ineffective warnings, and no program to inspect, review or evaluate adequacy of warning signs. Said the court: In the exercise of due care, the state should have posted more specific warnings in the area of greatest risk and in a manner that would adequately impress visitors with the extent of the risk involved . . . The signs did not warn with the intensity and urgency demanded of the falling-rock hazard in the waterfall area at Sacred Falls." See htlp://starbu..Il-etln.com/2002/09/25/news/storyl.html