Tri-S Corp. v. W. World Ins. Co., 110 Haw. 473, 498, 135 P.3d 82, 107 (2006). Citing Weite v. Momohara, 124 Haw. 236, 264-65, 240 P.3d 899, 927-28 (Haw. App. 2010), DeCoite asserts that an award of prejudgment interest should be denied where (1) the defendant's conduct did not cause any delay in the proceedings; (2) the plaintiff himself caused or contributed to the delay in bringing the action to trial; or (3) an extraordinary damage award has already adequately compensated plaintiff. Doc. No. 11, DeCoite Br. at 20.
Gepaya, 103 Hawai‘i at 148, 80 P .3d at 327.Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai‘i 236, 260, 240 P.3d 899, 923 (App.2010) (emphasis added) cert. denied, No. SCWC–29322, 2011 WL 716062 (Feb. 14, 2011). On November 3, 2010, Tscha appealed from the Arbitrator's award and requested a trial de novo pursuant to Hawai‘i Arbitration Rules (HAR) Rule 22.
This court concludes that, at least on the present record, it does not. See, e.g., Weite v. Momohara, 124 Haw. 236, 266, 240 P.3d 899, 929 (Ct. App. 2010) (affirming order denying request for prejudgment interest despite delay of approximately three years); Page v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 80 Haw. 204, 210, 908 P.2d 552, 558 (Ct. App. 1995) (affirming order denying request for prejudgment interest when the judgment "was entered over three-and-a-half years after Page was injured"). Instead, "any delay was the result of the normal course of litigation[.]"
(1) if fault is found on the part of the party seeking interest, denial of interest will not be considered an abuse of discretion; (2) if fault is found on the part of the party opposing interest, an award of interest will not be considered an abuse of discretion; and (3) where no fault is found on either side, the trial court may still award or deny prejudgment interest in its discretion, depending on the circumstances of the case. 110 Hawai`i 473, 498, 135 P.3d 82, 107 (2006); see also Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai`i 236, 266, 240 P.3d 899, 929 (Ct. App. 2010) ("There is no evidence in the record on appeal to suggest that Momohara's conduct unduly delayed the proceedings of the case so as to justify an award of prejudgment interest to Weite. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Weite's motion for prejudgment interest.
"It is well-settled that plaintiffs have the burden of proving the elements of a negligence action — duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages." Adams v. Yokooji, 126 Hawai`i 420, 426, 271 P.3d 1179, 1185 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Takayama v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 82 Hawai`i 486, 498-99, 923 P.2d 903, 915-16 (1996)); see also Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai`i 236, 253, 240 P.3d 899, 916 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Damages comprise an essential element of a negligence claim." (citing Cho v. State, 115 Hawai`i 373, 379 n.11, 168 P.3d 17, 23 n.11 (2007))).
Actual damages are an essential element of a negligence claim, just as actual injury is one of the elements of a products liability or strict liability claim. See, e.g., Weite v. Momohara, 124 Haw. 236, 253, 240 P.3d 899, 916 (Haw. 2010) ("Damages comprise an essential element of a negligence claim." (citation omitted)); Cho v. State, 115 Haw. 373, 379 n.11, 168 P.3d 17, 23 n.11 (Haw. 2007) ("It is well-established that, in order for a plaintiff to prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff is required to prove all four of the necessary elements of negligence: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages."); Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 85 Haw. 336, 371, 944 P.2d 1279, 1314 (Haw. 1997)
.E.g., Montalvo v. Lapez, 77 Hawai'i 282, 292, 884 P.2d 345, 355 (1994) ; Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai'i 236, 243, 240 P.3d 899, 906 (App. 2010).E.g., O'Grady v. State, 140 Hawai'i 36, 48, 398 P.3d 625, 637 (2017) ; Taylor-Rice v. State, 91 Hawai'i 60, 74, 979 P.2d 1086, 1100 (1999) ; Aga v. Hundahl, 78 Hawai'i 230, 237, 891 P.2d 1022, 1029 (1995).
As Clouse correctly argues, the lack of dispute as to whether Clouse violated a traffic law would not establish her liability for negligence. For summary judgment on Vincent's negligence claim to have been proper, there must not have been a genuine issue of material fact as to the following four elements: “(1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai‘i 236, 253, 240 P.3d 899, 916 (App.2010) (quoting Cho v. State, 115 Hawai‘i 373, 379 n. 11, 168 P.3d 17, 23 n. 11 (2007)). “It is the established rule in this jurisdiction that a driver must exercise a right of way in such a manner as to observe due care to avoid colliding with other persons or vehicles on the highway.” Sherry v. Asing, 56 Haw. 135, 143, 531 P.2d 648, 655 (1975) (citing State v. Arena, 46 Haw. 315, 379 P.2d 594 (1963); Hymer v. Chai, 407 F.2d 136 (9th Cir.1969).