2008-03-17_Daniel_Johnson_v_State_Civil_06-1-0303_Defendant_County_of_Hawaii's_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_filed_March_17_2008

Home

i and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another. Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins. Co., Ltd., 92 Hawaii 398, 419, 992 P.2d 93, 114 (2000). 2. The County owed no duty to PIaintiff. A prerequisite to any negligence action is the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. Lee v. Corregedore, 83 Hawaii 154, 158-159, 925 P.2d 324, 328-329 (1996). The existence of a duty is entirely a question of law. Ruf v. Honolulu Police Department, 89 Hawaii 315, 320, 972 P.2d 1081, 1086 (1999). The general rule is that a person does not have a duty to act affirmatively to protect another person from harm. Lee, 83 Hawaii at 159, 925 P.2d at 329. The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action. Id., citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §314A (1965). The exceptions to this general rule arise when a "special relationship" exists between the actor and the individual facing harm. Lee, 83 Hawaii at 159, 925 P.2d at 329. In determining whether such a relationship exists, Section 314(A)(4) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) provides that, "one who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection is under a . . . duty [to take reasonable action to protect the other person from unreasonable risk of physical harm]." (Emphasis added.) Id. See also Seibel v. City and County of Honolulu, 61 Haw. 253, 257, 602 P.2d 532, 536 (1979); Ruf, 89 Hawaii at 323, 972 P.2d at 1089. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that the County had a special relationship with Plaintiff. He was not under the custody of the County, nor is there any evidence to show he was an owner of the property which he alleges the County was negligent in protecting. There is no 6