IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHARLES L. RAPOZA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of
CHARLES L. RAPOZA, JR., Deceased; CHARLA PUA LINDSEY, as Next
Friend of CHAE-LYNN KEALAPUA LINDSEY; CHARLES RAPOZA, SR.;
THERESA HOLICEK; and CASEY SOUZA, Plaintiffs-Appellants
vs.
WILLOCKS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Hawai`i corporation,
Defendants-Appellees
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
(CIV. NO. 96-026K)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES L. RAPOZA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of
CHARLES L. RAPOZA, JR., Deceased; CHARLA PUA LINDSEY, as Next Friend
of CHAE-LYNN KEALAPUA LINDSEY; CHARLES RAPOZA, SR.;
THERESA HOLICEK; and CASEY SOUZA, Plaintiffs-Appellants
vs.
KARL MILTON TAFT; JON GOMES; JON GOMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
Hawai`i corporation; ABRAHAM LEE; ABE LEE DEVELOPMENT, INC., a
Hawai`i corporation; KALAOA DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Hawai`i
corporation; KALAOA JOINT VENTURE, a Hawai`i General
Partnership in Dissolution; KALAOA PARTNERS, INC., a Hawai`i corporation;
HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC., a Hawai`i corporation,
Defendants-Appellees
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
and
JON GOMES, JON GOMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., ABRAHAM LEE,
ABE LEE DEVELOPMENT, INC., KALAOA DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
KALAOA JOINT VENTURE, DBA KALAOA PARTNERS,
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees
vs.
WILLOCKS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Hawai`i corporation,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10,
Third-Party Defendants
(CIV. NO. 96-286K)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NOS. 96-026K & 96-286K)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(By: Acoba, J.; With Moon, C.J., Levinson,
Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ., Concurring Separately)
With respect to the motion for reconsideration filed by Defendant-Appellee Karl Milton Taft on January 8, 2004, the memorandum opinion explains that in order to determine liability under Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-5, it is incorrect to simply rely on the definition of employee. The memorandum opinion states that in order to be considered an employer under chapter 386, "a person must be the recipient of services pursuant to a 'contract of hire or apprenticeship.'" Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai`i 1, 15, 919 P.2d 263, 277, (1996). Consequently, the memorandum opinion stated that "[b]ecause the record on summary judgment failed to establish that Taft was the employer of Rapoza, Taft was not immunized under HRS § 386-5 and summary judgment should not have been granted on that ground." Rapoza v. Willocks Constr. Corp., No. 22052 (Haw. Jan. 2, 2004) (mem.) at 15. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i January 29, 2004.
M. Tyler Pottenger
for defendant-appellant
Karl Milton Taft,
on the motion.
Not having joined in the memorandum opinion of which reconsideration
is being sought, and having concurred only in the result reached by the
memorandum opinion, I take no position with respect to the explanatory
language of the order denying motion for reconsideration but agree that
the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
(By: C.J. Moon, J. Levinson, J. Nakayama, and J. Duffy)