HEATHER R. WINFREY, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of JASMINE ROSE ANNE FRY and SAMUEL J. FRY, JR., Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GGP ALA MOANA LLC dba ALA MOANA CENTER, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants.
Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Michael Jay Green, Glenn H. Uesugi, and Myles S. Breiner
Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee:
Patricia M. Napier, Thomas Benedict, and Kimberly A. Vossman of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Rom A. Trader due to a vacancy, filed 06/04/12.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/22/12.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, & SSM, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Rom A. Trader assigned due to a vacancy.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, Heather R. Winfrey, individually and as personal representative for the Estate of Jasmine Rose Anne Fry, and Samuel J. Fry, Jr. (collectively, Petitioners), filed an application for writ of certiorari to review the March 15, 2012 Judgment on Appeal of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), issued pursuant to its February 14, 2012 Summary Disposition Order. The ICA’s order affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) June 14, 2010 Final Judgment, which was based on its grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent/Defendant-Appellee, GGP Ala Moana LLC dba Ala Moana Center (Ala Moana).
On certiorari, Petitioners argue that the ICA applied the wrong standard of review in failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. In addition, Petitioners claim that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Jasmine Rose Anne Fry (Fry) was authorized to be on the roof of the Ala Moana Center or whether she was acting voluntarily when she entered an exhaust duct, and that Ala Moana did not owe a duty to protect or warn Fry from dangers on the property. In response, Ala Moana argues that Petitioner’s theories of liability were entirely unsupported by the facts. Specifically, they contend that the ICA properly determined that Fry was not authorized to be on the rooftop, that her presence on the premises could not have been reasonably anticipated by Ala Moana, that Ala Moana did not owe a duty of care pursuant to Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Hawai`i 134, 135, 452 P.2d 445, 446 (1969), and that no special relationship existed such that Ala Moana owed a duty to render aid or otherwise protect Fry from the risks of danger resulting from her own voluntary actions.