LESTER SUMERA, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STEVEN GOO, individually and in his official capacity as operations manager, supervisor and safety manager, Petitioner/Defendant/Appellee, and ROYAL HAWAIIAN MOVERS, Defendant-Appellee, and GLEN SALVADOR, Defendant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee STEVEN GOO, individually and in his official capacity as operations manager, supervisor and safety manager:
     Mark G. Valencia of Case Lombardi

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant LESTER SUMERA:
     Alex M. Sonson of the Law Office of Alex M. Sonson

NOTE: Order assinging Circuit Judge Catherine H. Remigio, due to a vacancy, filed 01/14/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/26.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens JJ., and Circuit Judge Remigio, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from a tort action commenced by Respondent/Plaintiff Lester Sumera (Sumera) against co-employee Petitioner/Defendant Steven Goo (Goo). Sumera claims he was injured in the course of his employment due to Goo’s wilful and wanton misconduct. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 386–8 (2015) provides an exception to workers’ compensation immunity, stating that “[a]nother employee of the same employer shall not be relieved of his liability as a third party, if the personal injury is caused by his wilful and wanton misconduct.” Wilful and wanton misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), noting Sumera’s burden at trial to establish clear and convincing evidence of wilful and wanton misconduct, granted summary judgment for Goo. Sumera then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which determined the Circuit Court had applied the wrong summary judgment standard by considering whether Sumera would be able to produce clear and convincing evidence of Goo’s alleged wilful and wanton misconduct. The ICA vacated the Circuit Court’s summary judgment ruling.

The Supreme Court accepted Goo’s application for certiorari, in which he claims the ICA erred by failing to consider Sumera’s burden of proof at trial in determining whether summary judgment was proper.