RUF v. HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT

31 Citing cases

  1. Estate Admin. Servs. v. City & Cnty. Honolulu

    Civ. 23-00127 LEK-RT (D. Haw. Nov. 8, 2023)

    The City argues Ruf v. Honolulu Police Department, 89 Hawai'i 315, 972 P.2d 1081 (1999), bars the negligence claim because the Hawai'i Supreme Court in that case held that “‘the duty provided by the special relationship in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319 is not extended to the general public when the police department releases a criminal from custody . . .” [Motion, Mem. in Supp. at 20-21 (quoting Maho Wada v. Aloha King, LLC 154 F.Supp.3d 981, 998 (D. Haw. 2015) (citing Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dept., 89 Haw. 315, 972 P.2d 1081, 1095-96 (Haw. 1999))).

  2. Ryder v. Booth

    Civil No. 16-00065 HG-KSC (D. Haw. May. 11, 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that only one plaintiff had standing to pursue the decedent's Section 1983 claim on behalf of the decedent's estate

    Hawaii courts generally do not recognize a duty of police departments to provide police protection to individuals. Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 972 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Haw. 1999) (quoting Freitas v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (Haw. 1978)). An exception, however, applies to plaintiffs who allege that "police action has increased the risk of harm and there is negligence in providing protection against the enhanced danger."

  3. Hawaii Med. Ass'n v. Hawaii Med. Service

    113 Haw. 77 (Haw. 2006)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that businesses have standing to challenge unfair methods of competition only if "the nature of the competition is sufficiently alleged in the complaint"

    In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the [circuit] court is required to view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 89 Hawai'i 315, 319, 972 P.2d 1081, 1085 (1999) (brackets in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, this court reviews de novo the circuit court's order granting the motion.

  4. David v. Betts

    Civ. No. 20-00002 JMS-WRP (D. Haw. Mar. 31, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Hawaii law is well settled that "'[t]he failure of the police to provide protection against harm from third parties is ordinarily not actionable,' unless there is some 'special relationship' between the police officers (or the municipality) and the member of the public that was harmed." Ikeda, 2019 WL 4684455, at *8 (quoting Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 89 Haw. 315, 322-23, 972 P.2d 1081, 1088-89 (1999)) (some brackets omitted)). "But an exception to this rule exists 'where police action has increased the risk of harm and there is negligence in providing protection against the enhanced danger.'"

  5. Vargas v. City of Honolulu

    CIV. NO. 19-00116 LEK-WRP (D. Haw. Jun. 30, 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that "[the police officer] owed Plaintiff a duty not to engage in any affirmative acts that would worsen her situation"

    This district court has stated: the general rule is that "[t]he failure of the police to provide protection [against harm from third parties] is ordinarily not actionable," Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 972 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Haw. 1999) (quoting Freitas v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (1978)), unless there is some "special relationship" between the police officers (or the municipality) and the member of the public that was harmed. Id. at 1089.

  6. Ikeda v. City of Honolulu

    Case No. 19-cv-00009-DKW-KJM (D. Haw. Sep. 25, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    Such a notion is absurd under the facts alleged. Of course, the general rule is that "[t]he failure of the police to provide protection [against harm from third parties] is ordinarily not actionable," Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 972 P.2d 1081, 1088 (Haw. 1999) (quoting Freitas v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (1978)), unless there is some "special relationship" between the police officers (or the municipality) and the member of the public that was harmed. Id. at 1089.

  7. In re Office of Info. Practices Op. Letter No. F16-01

    465 P.3d 733 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 8 times

    This court reviews a circuit court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Hawai‘i Med. Ass'n v. Hawai‘i Med. Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 113 Hawai‘i 77, 91, 148 P.3d 1179, 1193 (2006) (citing Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 89 Hawai‘i 315, 319, 972 P.2d 1081, 1085 (1999) ). In a motion for judgment on the pleadings under HRCP Rule 12(c), the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  8. Barnett v. Hawaii Paroling Authority

    23565 (Haw. Nov. 28, 2003)

    On appeal, we reviewde novothe trial court's order granting the motion.Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 89 Haw. 315, 319, 972 P.2d 1081, 1085 (1999) (citations and brackets omitted) (emphases added). Barnett is appealing the court's final order.

  9. State v. Sandsness

    72 P.3d 299 (Alaska 2003)   Cited 20 times
    Rejecting claim that state had tort duty to use due care in deciding whether to release juvenile offender; imposing such a duty would make the state reluctant to release juveniles and override statutory compromise between offender's needs and society's needs

    Id. at 820-21.Id. at 821 (quoting Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dep't, 972 P.2d 1081, 1093 (Haw. 1999)).Id. at 822 (citing Vermont's statutory scheme for juvenile corrections and noting express purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration with society).

  10. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce

    96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002)   Cited 250 times
    Holding "the public-duty rule is incompatible with [tort claims statute's] express language requiring that the state's liability . . . be determined `in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties'"

    1986), 719 P.2d 643.{¶ a} See, e.g., Williams v. State (1983), 34 Cal.3d 18, 192 Cal.Rptr. 233, 664 P.2d 137; Shore v. Stonington (1982), 187 Conn. 147, 444 A.2d 1379; Morgan v. Dist. of Columbia (D.C.App. 1983), 468 A.2d 1306; Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dept. (1999), 89 Haw. 315, 972 P.2d 1081; Kolbe v. State (Iowa 2001), 625 N.W.2d 721; Fudge v. Kansas City, 239 Kan. 369, 720 P.2d 1093; Cracraft v. St. Louis Park (Minn. 1979), 279 N.W.2d 801; State ex rel. Barthelette v. Sanders (Mo. 1988), 756 S.W.2d 536; Coty v. Washoe Cty. (1992), 108 Nev. 757, 839 P.2d 97; Cuffy v. New York City, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 513 N.Y.Supp.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937; Catone v. Medberry (R.I. 1989), 555 A.2d 328; Steinke v. South Carolina Dept. of Labor (1999), 336 S.C. 373, 520 S.E.2d 142; Tipton v. Tabor (S.D. 1997), 567 N.W.2d 351; Rollins v. Petersen (Utah 1991), 813 P.2d 1156; Chambers-Castanes v. King Cty. (1983), 100 Wn.2d 275, 669 P.2d 451; Benson v. Kutsch (1989), 181 W. Va. 1, 380 S.E.2d 36. {¶ b} Five other states — Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Vermont — have applied the public-duty rule in a more limited fashion.