## Facts

- A sugar mill owner commissioned new mill buildings; an architect prepared the plans and specifications.
- A steel fabricator manufactured and fabricated a prefabricated steel mill building, including vertical columns with welded clips and horizontal girts to be attached during erection.
- An ironworker employed by the erection contractor installed girts by attaching them to column clips and then standing on the newly connected girt to reach the next level.
- While the ironworker was connecting a higher girt about 10–20 feet above ground, the lower girt he was standing on came loose and he fell.
- The supporting clip for that girt had been only tack welded rather than fully welded.
- The ironworker sued the fabricator and the mill owner on negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability theories.
- The jury found the fabricator liable on all theories and also found the ironworker contributorily negligent; the trial court reduced damages proportionally.
- The fabricator sought a new trial or remittitur; the ironworker sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict or amendment to remove the reduction. The trial court denied both.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that the fabricator was liable for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability based on the tack-welded clip and resulting fall.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s fault could be considered to reduce damages in an action that included a strict products liability claim.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the fabricator’s motion for a new trial or remittitur and the plaintiff’s post-trial motion to eliminate the reduction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the judgment and the post-trial order.
- The court held the evidence supported the jury’s findings that the tack-welded clip constituted defective or negligent fabrication that proximately caused the injury.
- The court upheld the proportional reduction of damages based on the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial, remittitur, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer or fabricator may be liable in strict products liability, negligence, and warranty when a defect in fabricated structural components causes injury during foreseeable use in construction.
- In Hawaii, plaintiff fault may be taken into account to reduce recovery in a strict products liability case where the plaintiff’s conduct goes beyond a mere failure to discover or guard against a defect and constitutes culpable conduct appropriate for comparative allocation.
- Appellate review of jury findings on liability and causation is deferential; verdicts are upheld if supported by sufficient evidence viewed favorably to the prevailing party.
- Trial courts have broad discretion on motions for new trial and remittitur; denial will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a verdict holding a steel fabricator liable for injuries caused by a tack-welded clip and held that, under Hawaii law, a plaintiff’s culpable conduct may be used to apportion and reduce damages even in a case including strict products liability.


Kaneko v. Hilo Coast Processing, 654 P.2d 343 (Haw. 1982)