## Facts

- Beatrice and Douglas Dashiell, California residents, rented a three-wheel golf cart while at a golf course owned by Keauhou-Kona Company (KKC) in Hawaiʻi.
- Douglas played golf; beginning early in the round, Beatrice drove the cart while accompanying him.
- After lunch, the Dashiells took a wrong turn and, after realizing the mistake, proceeded downhill on a maintenance road to return toward the tenth tee area.
- As the cart descended the incline, Beatrice lost control, missed the turn-off for the tee, entered a parking area, and collided with a truck that was backing out.
- The cart operated with a T-shaped floor pedal: pressing forward accelerated; lifting off allowed coasting to a stop; pressing the rear portion applied the brake.
- The Dashiells sued KKC (and related golf course defendants) alleging negligent design or construction of cart paths, supplying an unreasonably dangerous cart for the terrain, and failing to warn about an allegedly defective braking system.
- The case was tried to a jury in federal district court (District of Hawaiʻi) on liability issues using a special verdict.
- The jury found Beatrice contributorily negligent in connection with the accident; Douglas was not personally negligent.
- Judgment was entered for the defendants on the ground that Beatrice’s contributory negligence barred recovery and was attributed to Douglas under imputed contributory negligence principles. The Dashiells appealed.

## Issues

1. In a diversity action arising from an accident in Hawaiʻi involving California domiciliaries, should Hawaiʻi law govern the effect of contributory negligence and any imputation of a driver-spouse’s negligence to a passenger-spouse?
2. Under the governing law, may the driver-spouse’s contributory negligence be imputed to the non-negligent spouse so as to bar the non-negligent spouse’s recovery?
3. Did any asserted errors in the trial court’s instructions or special-verdict procedure require reversal?

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- Held that the district court properly applied Hawaiʻi law to the accident and to the consequences of contributory negligence.
- Held that, under Hawaiʻi law as applied by the district court, Beatrice’s contributory negligence barred her recovery and could be attributed to Douglas, preventing his recovery despite the jury’s finding that he was not personally negligent.
- Found no reversible error in the manner the case was submitted to the jury or in the challenged instructions and verdict procedure.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity case, a federal court applies the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to select the substantive law governing tort issues.
- Under Hawaiʻi’s then-existing contributory negligence rule, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence that is a legal cause of the injury is a complete bar to recovery.
- Hawaiʻi law permitted attribution (imputation) of a driver-spouse’s contributory negligence to the passenger-spouse in circumstances treated as a shared undertaking, thereby defeating the passenger-spouse’s claim even absent personal negligence.
- Appellate review does not reweigh the jury’s factual determinations; absent prejudicial legal error, a special verdict and accompanying judgment will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the defense judgment because Hawaiʻi law governed an accident occurring in Hawaiʻi, and under that law the jury’s finding that Beatrice Dashiell was contributorily negligent barred her recovery and was properly attributed to Douglas Dashiell, foreclosing his recovery even though he was not personally negligent.


Dashiell v. Keauhou-Kona Co., 487 F.2d 957 (1973)