Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

NO. 28328 – Wednesday, September 10, 2008 – 10:15 a.m.

DASON UDAC and GWENDOLYN N. UDAC, Trustee for the Alfredo Udac Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. TAKATA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and HAWAII MOTORS, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; ROE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS; and DOE OVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, Defendants. (Product Liability)

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Kenneth K. Fukunaga and Lois H. Yamaguchi (Fukunaga Matayoshi Hershey & Ching)
Kenneth S. Geller*

Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Steven K. Hisaka and Gail Cosgrove (Hisaka Yoshida Cosgrove) Dwayne S. Lerma and JoAnne E. Goya (Lerma & Goya)
Jeffrey L. Fisher*

COURT: Watanabe, Foley and Fujise, JJ.

Order Granting Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey L. Fisher, filed 7/14/08.
Order Granting Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Kenneth S. Geller, filed 7/15/08.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument to take place in the Supreme Court courtroom in Ali`iolani Hale of the Judiciary Building.

NOTE: Order granting Motion to Continue Oral Argument, filed 7/21/08. The above case was previously set for argument on Wed., August 13, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief description:

Plaintiffs Dason Udac and Gwendolyn Udac, Trustee for the Alfredo Udac Revocable Living Trust, sued Defendant Takata Corporation, among others, alleging that the design of a seatbelt installed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle was defective. Plaintiffs raised claims based in strict liability and negligence and sought general and punitive damages. A jury found Takata Corporation negligent and awarded general and punitive damages to Plaintiffs. On appeal Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee Takata Corporation alleges that the circuit court erred in: (1) erroneously excluding evidence of an expert, (2) erroneously admitting two patents into evidence, (3) erroneously admitting certain design specifications into evidence, (4) giving erroneous jury instructions, (5) allowing the question of “false latching” to go to the jury, (6) failing to grant Takata Corporation’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages, and (7) incorrectly affirming the punitive damages award. On cross-appeal, Plaintiffs/ Appellees/Cross-Appellants allege that the circuit court abused its discretion in: (1) allowing prejudgment interest on the verdict amount from the date of the verdict rather than from the accident date and (2) denying prejudgment interest on the punitive damages award.