Loui v. Oakley

Supreme Court of Hawaii · Torts

TortsDamagesApportionment of damagessuccessive accidentsmultiple automobile accidentsapportionmentdivisible injuriesindivisible injuries

Facts

Defendant was responsible for an automobile accident on August 4, 1961. Before trial, plaintiff was involved in three additional accidents on February 11, 1962, November 16, 1962, and January 4, 1965, and most injuries from the later accidents involved the same area of the body injured in the first accident. The only contested issue at trial was the amount of damages caused by defendant's negligence. The trial court instructed the jury that if injuries from all four accidents were indivisible and the jury could not separate them, defendant could be liable for all damages, and the jury awarded plaintiff general and special damages.

Issue

When a plaintiff suffers injuries in a series of automobile accidents months or years apart, may the first tortfeasor be held liable for all damages from all accidents if the jury cannot determine by a preponderance of the evidence how much damage the first accident caused? If not, what apportionment method should govern when precise allocation is impossible?

Rule

A defendant in the first of several accidents may not be held liable for all damages from all accidents merely because the plaintiff cannot prove with precision what portion is attributable to the first accident. If the jury cannot determine by a preponderance of the evidence how much of the plaintiff's damages can be attributed to the defendant's negligence, it may make a rough apportionment; if it cannot make even a rough apportionment, it must apportion the damages equally among the various accidents. In apportioning damages, each accident must be considered regardless of whether the plaintiff can recover from persons involved in the other accidents.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Nina Velasquez was rear-ended by Owen Pike in 2021 and later was involved in two additional collisions in 2022 that affected the same lower-back condition. In Nina's suit against Owen alone, the medical proof does not permit a precise allocation of her back pain by accident, but the jury could reasonably estimate that the first crash caused about 40% of her overall back-related damages.

How should the court instruct the jury regarding damages?

Explanation. The majority rejected both extremes: making the first tortfeasor pay all damages and denying recovery unless the plaintiff proves the precise amount caused by that defendant. When the jury cannot determine by a preponderance of the evidence exactly how much damage is attributable to the defendant's negligence, it may make a rough apportionment based on the evidence. Equal division is required only if even rough apportionment is impossible. (Derived from Loui v. Oakley (n.d.).)