Belford v. State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-DEC-2024
07:57 AM
Dkt. 74 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CHEYENNE BELFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendant-Appellee, and
JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CC171001287)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka, and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Cheyenne Belford (Belford) appeals

from the January 5, 2021 Final Judgment (Judgment) entered in

favor of Defendant-Appellee State of Hawai#i (State) after a

bench trial conducted by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit

(Circuit Court).1 Belford also challenges the Circuit Court's

March 20, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision

and Order Granting Judgment in Favor of Defendant (FOFs, COLs,

and Order) and December 23, 2020 Order Denying [Belford's] Motion

to Review and Disallow Costs (Order re Costs).

1
The Honorable Bert I. Ayabe presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Belford raises six points of error on appeal,

contending that the Circuit Court: (1) clearly erred in finding

that the supervision of Belford was proper and appropriate, and

that Belford did not present any credible evidence to rebut this;

(2) clearly erred in relying on Belford's minimum custody status

in determining that the State did not breach its duty to act

reasonably in supervising Belford to prevent injury; (3) clearly

erred in finding that Belford had demonstrated competency in the

use of the tools and in relying upon that finding to conclude the
State did not breach its duty; (4) clearly erred in finding and

relying upon evidence that workline instructor Bruce Kurosawa

(Kurosawa) specifically told the class not to cut on the rolling

tool box, and erred in concluding that the State did not breach

its duty to act reasonably in training Belford to prevent injury;

(5) erred in concluding that Belford's injuries were not legally

caused by the State; and (6) clearly erred in finding that

Belford failed to present credible evidence of her financial

condition and inability to pay the State's costs.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Belford's points of error as follows:

(1) - (4) Belford argues that the Circuit Court

clearly erred in finding that the State did not breach its duty

to exercise reasonable care. COL 4 is not challenged and

provides:

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4. The State owes a general duty of reasonable care
to all persons in its custody. Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw.
369, 376, 604 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1979).

Belford challenges, inter alia, COLs 5 and 6, which
state:
5. The State did not breach its duty to act
reasonably in supervising [Belford] and the inmates in the
building maintenance class to prevent injury to them.
Because [Belford] and the inmates in the building
maintenance class were minimum custody inmates, and because
they had demonstrated competency in the use of the tools,
the amount of supervision required was intermittent.
[Belford] and the other inmates in the class did not need
constant supervision as they were not behavioral management
problems. [Belford] was also described as the "cut person"
because she was good at cutting pieces of wood for framing.
Sergeant Kamelamela testified that workline inmates are
given independence, a practice consistent with the
Department of Public Safety policies and procedures. The
credible evidence presented by the State showed that the
supervision of [Belford] and the inmates was proper and
appropriate, and [Belford] did not present any credible
evidence to rebut this.
6. The State did not breach its duty to act
reasonably in training [Belford] and the inmates in the
building maintenance class to prevent injury to them. Ms.
Okumura testified that [Kurosawa] discussed safety a lot and
he was very concerned that the inmates were partnered up and
safe. He instructed the inmates that when using the
circular saw, they should only cut wood on the table or on
the grass. [Kurosawa] specifically told the class not to cut
on the rolling tool box because it was slippery on the top.
He told the class that they should cut on a flat surface.
The credible evidence presented by the State showed that the
training was proper and appropriate and [Belford] did not
present any credible evidence to rebut this.

Belford argues that the weight of the evidence at trial

established that: (1) she was a novice, with no experience in
the use of a circular saw; (2) she did not recognize that the

manner in which she was using the saw was improper or dangerous;

(3) it was reasonably foreseeable that she would injure herself

if unsupervised; and (4) if Kurosawa had been supervising her, he

would have intervened to prevent Belford's improper use of the

saw.

There is, however, substantial evidence in the record

that supports the Circuit Court's mixed findings and conclusions.

Kurosawa testified that safety, and the importance of safety, was

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

part of the curriculum in the building maintenance course

Kurosawa taught to eight student inmates, including Belford.

Safety, as it relates to OSHA training, was part of the

curriculum and the course lasted roughly 225 hours. Kurosawa

described a "hands-on tutorial on how to use power tools, the

safety of the power tools and just basic manipulation of the tool

itself[,]" which was taught in the first week of class. Each

student, including Belford, worked individually with Kurosawa,

and was required to demonstrate how to use these tools in front
of Kurosawa, and to explain "exactly what each function was of

the tool[,]" including the circular saw. With respect to the

circular saw, Kurosawa testified concerning his training of safe

techniques for use of the saw. Kurosawa specifically testified

that he "told the [inmates], whenever you cut, to be cutting on

the outside picnic table[.]" Belford testified that Kurosawa

taught her that when using the circular saw, she should use it

either on the picnic table or on the ground. Kurosawa further

testified that Belford was his "cut person," and that Belford had

demonstrated "proficien[cy] in the use of the circular saw."

Kurosawa also testified that he had only left Belford directly

unsupervised for five minutes at the time of the incident, and

that Kurosawa generally supervised the inmates at all times,

except "on occasion" as, for example, when he needed to accompany

inmates to the bathroom.

Kurosawa's testimony was corroborated by the safety and

health sergeant, operations sergeant, and workline coordinator at

the Women's Community Correctional Center (WCCC) Ashley

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Keliipopohaku Kamelamela (known as Sgt. Haku), as well as

Belford's classmate, Chanda Okumura (Okumura). Sgt. Haku

testified that Kurosawa described Belford as "excell[ing] in

[the] class." Sgt. Haku also said that she did not recall seeing

anything unsafe or that she recognized as unsafe, and that if she

had, she would have addressed it by taking "corrective

measurements." Sgt. Haku further testified that she never saw

Kurosawa teaching in a way that concerned her regarding safety.

Additionally, Sgt. Haku testified that, once inmates demonstrate
competency, they are allowed "some independence," which is

"consistent with the policies and procedures of the Department of

Public Safety."

Okumura testified that Kurosawa discussed safety

matters with the class, including safety guidelines regarding

using power tools and "how to be safe when using power tools[.]"

She said that Kurosawa talked a lot about safety when using power

tools. Okumura further testified that "[Kurosawa] was very

concerned about teaching [the inmates] the right way and making

sure that we were partnered up and safe with what we did, because

accidents could happen. He didn't want nobody getting hurt."

Moreover, Okumura testified, inter alia, that, "[Kurosawa] would

show us how to use the circular saw," the different parts, how to

take it apart, how to lock it, and "he didn't just let us jump on

the saw." Okumura explained that Kurosawa watched everyone take

turns cutting with the circular saw, and that the purpose of

doing so was for each of the inmates to learn safety, and how to

use the saw safely. Finally, Okumura testified that the inmates

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

were instructed "only to cut on the table, or . . . the ground on

the grass[,]" and that they were told this "multiple times."

Okumura clarified, with respect to cutting with the circular saw

on the toolbox (which Belford did at the time of her injury),

that Kurosawa "specifically told us not to cut on the rolling

toolbox because it was slippery on the top."

In sum, substantial evidence in the record – including

but not limited to the above – supports that the State understood

the potential danger, and took myriad measures to attenuate the
foreseeable risks of harm. Indeed, much of the aforementioned

testimony was corroborated by Belford herself, who testified that

she understood that she should "adjust the [circular saw's] blade

so that it goes through the board, [so that] it doesn't stick out

too far," and that she knew that, when cutting with a saw, that

it should be placed on a secure surface - all of which she

learned from Kurosawa. Belford also testified that Kurosawa "was

concerned about everybody's safety[.]"

Notwithstanding some contrary evidence in the record,

"[the] appellate court will not pass upon the trial judge's

decisions with respect to the credibility of witnesses and the

weight of the evidence, because this is the province of the trial

judge." Porter v. Hu, 116 Hawai#i 42, 59-60, 169 P.3d 994, 1011-

12 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai#i 131, 139,

913 P.2d 57, 65 (1996)). In light of the substantial evidence

supporting the Circuit Court's findings and conclusions,

including the above, this court is not left with a definite and

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

firm conviction that a mistake has been made.2 Therefore, we

cannot conclude that the Circuit Court clearly erred with respect

to COLs 5 and 6. See Doe Parents No. 1 v. State of Haw., Dep't

of Educ., 100 Hawai#i 34, 57-58, 58 P.3d 545, 568-69 (2002)

(describing standards applicable to our review). We conclude

that the Circuit Court did not clearly err in its findings and

conclusions that the State did not breach its duty to exercise

reasonable care with respect to, inter alia, the training and

supervision of Belford here.
(5) Belford argues that the Circuit Court clearly

erred in finding that her injuries were not legally caused by the

State. Belford points to Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel Inc.,

69 Haw. 376, 383, 742 P.2d 377, 385 (1987), and Haworth v. State,

60 Haw. 557, 566, 592 P.2d 820, 825-26 (1979), to support her

argument that because the State breached its duty to conform to

the standard of care that the law requires, the State is

responsible for Belford's injury. As we have concluded that the

State did not breach its duty to exercise reasonable care, we

conclude that this argument is without merit.

(6) Belford argues that the Circuit Court abused its

discretion when it awarded costs to the State, as prevailing

party, due to Belford's indigency. Belford's August 6, 2020

2
Belford argues, in part, that the Circuit Court clearly erred in
COL 5 because whether an inmate needs constant supervision with respect to
behavioral management problems is not dispositive of the issue of the
supervision necessary with respect to the operation of a circular saw. While
this proposition is correct - that supervision for behavioral management was
not a determinative issue - this was merely one aspect of the Circuit Court's
findings and conclusions, which as a whole support the conclusion that State
did not breach its duty to exercise reasonable care and supervision under the
circumstances.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Motion to Review and Disallow Costs was based solely on a

declaration of counsel claiming that at the time Belford was

injured and during the course of the trial, Belford "was

incarcerated and had no earnings, income, or assets of any

significant value." Thus, "as a matter of fairness and equity,"

Belford asked that the Clerk's Taxation of Costs be vacated and

disallowed. In opposition, the State argued that Belford offered

no evidence of her current financial situation, no documentary

support for a claim of inability to pay costs, and is relying on
only the "self-serving hearsay statements of her attorney." In

the Order re Costs, the Circuit Court acknowledged that indigency

may be a factor in awarding costs, but found that Belford failed

to present credible evidence of her current financial condition

and inability to pay the costs. On this record, we cannot

conclude that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in entering

the Order re Costs. See Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 54(d)(1);3 Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Hawai#i 3, 22,

143 P.3d 1205, 1224 (2006); Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai#i 46, 52,

961 P.2d 611, 617 (1998).

3
HRCP Rule 54(d)(1) provides:

Rule 54. JUDGMENTS; COSTS; ATTORNEYS' FEES
. . . .
(d) Costs; attorneys' fees.
(1) COSTS OTHER THAN ATTORNEYS' FEES. Except when
express provision therefor is made either in a statute or in
these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the
prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs; but
costs against the State or a county, or an officer or agency
of the State or a county, shall be imposed only to the
extent permitted by law. Costs may be taxed by the clerk on
48 hours' notice. On motion served within 5 days
thereafter, the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the
court.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's January 5, 2021

Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 17, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Eric A. Seitz,
Della A. Belatti, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Gina Szeto-Wong, Associate Judge
Jonathan M.F. Loo,
Kevin A. Yolken, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge

Marie Manuele Gavigan,
Corinne J. Carson,
Deputy Attorneys General,
Department of the Attorney General,
for Defendant-Appellee.

9