STAND. COM. REP. NO. 444-04

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2004

RE: H.B. No. 2381

H.D. 1

 

 

 

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Second State Legislature

Regular Session of 2004

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred H.B. No. 2381 entitled:

"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO THE STATE TORT LIABILITY ACT,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to amend the State Tort Liability Act (STLA) to provide the State greater immunity from lawsuits in response to Hawaii Supreme Court rulings narrowing the State's immunity under STLA.

Specifically, this bill:

(1) Expands the State's exception from liability for intentional torts and claims of negligent hire or supervision of an employee who is alleged to have committed an intentional tort; and

(2) Specifies that the exception from liability based on the State's exercise of discretionary function or duty shall be interpreted in the same way the federal courts interpret the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The Department of the Attorney General and a concerned individual testified in support of this bill. The Consumer Lawyers of Hawaii opposed this measure.

Your Committee is concerned about the increase in the number of lawsuits against the State and the tort judgments awarded in those cases. In general, the State has sovereign immunity from suit, except to the extent claims may be filed for actions permitted under STLA. In a recent Hawaii Supreme Court case, DOE Parents v. State of Hawaii, the court expanded the State's liability for an employee's actions under STLA. The court found that the State was responsible for negligent hire or supervision of the employee, torts for which the State is not specifically excluded from liability under STLA. Your Committee finds that such expansion of liability for a state employee's tortious and unauthorized conduct is not in the public's interest and that STLA should be amended to clarify the limits of the State's liability in this area.

Despite its concerns about the proliferation of lawsuits against the State, your Committee does not recommend that the interpretation of the exception from liability for discretionary function should be statutorily based on the federal courts' interpretations of comparable language in federal law. The Hawaii Supreme Court is better suited to interpreting that exception under the specific facts presented in each case based on stare decisis and appropriate case law. Your Committee is not persuaded by the speculation that the Hawaii Supreme Court would hold the State liable should the State be faced with mass tort litigation due to its actions during a public health crisis. Indeed, no proponent of this bill has presented any facts to support that conjecture. Moreover, this bill would create even more confusion in interpreting the state law because federal courts are not necessarily in agreement on the meaning of the discretionary function.

Your Committee has amended this bill by:

(1) Removing the federal interpretation of the discretionary function exception;

(2) Clarifying the effect of this bill upon pending cases;

(3) Deleting the section of the STLA relating to Year 2000 errors by government computer systems, which is functus; and

(4) Making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for style and clarity.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 2381, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 2381, H.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,

 

____________________________

ERIC G. HAMAKAWA, Chair