## Facts

- Cynthia J. Dennis was killed in her apartment at the Discovery Bay condominium complex by her estranged boyfriend, Peter Moli Sataraka.
- Sataraka sought entry to the building after Dennis did not respond to the building “enterphone.”
- A security guard, Timothy W. Walker, admitted Sataraka into the building based on prior familiarity with him entering with Dennis or using a key.
- Dennis’s estate and family sued the condominium association (AOAO Discovery Bay) and Walker for negligent security and sued Sataraka for the killing.
- A jury found: (1) Discovery Bay negligent, (2) Dennis negligent, and (3) Sataraka’s conduct intentional, allocating fault 92% to Sataraka, 5% to Dennis, and 3% to Discovery Bay.
- The circuit court entered judgment for Discovery Bay under HRS § 663-31 because Dennis’s negligence (5%) exceeded Discovery Bay’s (3%).
- The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding HRS § 663-31 applied only to actions “entirely” sounding in negligence and imposing liability on Discovery Bay based on combined fault.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether HRS § 663-31’s modified comparative negligence bar applies to a negligent defendant in an action that also includes an intentional tortfeasor.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s negligence must be compared only to the negligent defendant(s), rather than to combined fault including an intentional tortfeasor, for purposes of the statutory recovery bar.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated judgment for Discovery Bay.
- The court held that HRS § 663-31 is not limited to cases involving only negligent tortfeasors.
- Applying the jury’s allocations, the court concluded Dennis’s negligence (5%) was greater than Discovery Bay’s (3%), triggering the statutory bar to recovery against Discovery Bay.

## Legal Principles

- HRS § 663-31’s modified comparative negligence rule applies in multi-party cases that include both negligent and intentional tortfeasors.
- A negligent defendant may invoke HRS § 663-31’s recovery bar when the claimant’s negligence exceeds that defendant’s negligence, even if an intentional tortfeasor bears the majority of fault.
- Percentages of causal fault may be allocated among negligent plaintiffs, negligent defendants, and intentional tortfeasors without removing application of the modified comparative negligence statute to negligent defendants.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hawaiʻi’s modified comparative negligence statute applies in mixed cases involving negligence and intentional torts, and it barred recovery against a negligent defendant where the decedent’s negligence exceeded that defendant’s negligence, despite an intentional co-defendant bearing most fault.


Ozaki v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay, 87 Haw. 265, 954 P.2d 644 (Haw. 1998)