Harkness-Pastrana v. Rasos

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-MAR-2025
08:28 AM
Dkt. 59 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

HEATHER HARKNESS-PASTRANA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
ABRAHAM RASOS, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5, DOE ENTITIES 1-5,
JOHN DOES 1-5, JANE DOES 1-5,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CIVIL CASE NO. 2CC181000105(1))

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Heather Harkness-Pastrana

(Harkness-Pastrana) appeals from the October 28, 2021 Judgment

(Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit

(Circuit Court) in favor of Defendant-Appellee Abraham Rasos

(Rasos) at the conclusion of a jury trial.1 Harkness-Pastrana

also challenges the February 7, 2022 Order Denying [Harkness-

Pastrana's] Non-Hearing Motion to Set Aside Verdict and Judgment

and for New Trial (Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Verdict).2

1
The Honorable Rhonda I.L. Loo presided.
2
The Honorable Kirstin Hamman presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Harkness-Pastrana raises five points of error on

appeal, contending that: (1) the jury's verdict that Rasos's

negligent conduct was not a substantial factor in causing harm to

Harkness-Pastrana was in error and so manifestly against the

weight of the evidence as to indicate bias, prejudice, passion,

or misunderstanding of the charge of the Circuit Court; (2) the

Circuit Court erred by refusing to examine Rasos to assess his

English proficiency and by refusing Harkness-Pastrana's request

for an interpreter; (3) the Circuit Court erred in sustaining
Rasos's objection to asking him leading questions; (4) the

Circuit Court erred in prohibiting impeachment of Rasos and/or

refreshing his recollection with the use of his deposition

transcript; and (5) the Circuit Court erred in prohibiting

Harkness-Pastrana from mentioning insurance.

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, we resolve

Harkness-Pastrana's points of error as follows:

(1) This case stems from an accident on Maui involving

four cars driven by Rasos, Harkness-Pastrana, and two other

drivers, Benjamin Selove (Selove) and Dariush Tajbakhsh

(Tajbakhsh). At the time of the accident, Rasos was in the first

car and was rear-ended by Selove when Rasos braked abruptly.

Harkness-Pastrana was behind Selove, and slammed on her brakes,

averting a collision with Selove. However, Tajbakhsh hit the

rear corner of Harkness-Pastrana's vehicle, despite braking

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

sharply and turning the wheel to try to avoid Harkness-Pastrana's

vehicle.

The jury found that Rasos was negligent. However, the

jury also found that Rasos's negligence was not a substantial

factor in causing harm to Harkness-Pastrana, that zero percent of

Harkness-Pastrana's alleged personal injury damages were caused

by the collision, and that Harkness-Pastrana was entitled to zero

special damages and zero general damages.

Harkness-Pastrana argues, inter alia, that the verdict
rendered was against the manifest weight of the evidence because

the other drivers testified that Rasos caused the collision, and

Harkness-Pastrana's physician witnesses opined that her injuries

were caused by the collision. In support of this argument,

however, Harkness-Pastrana points almost exclusively to evidence

concerning Rasos's negligence leading to the accident, including

his lack of candor and inconsistent testimony. In addition,

Harkness-Pastrana makes limited references to the supportive

testimony of Dr. Thomas Rogers, a neurosurgeon who first saw

Harkness-Pastrana three months after the collision, and Dr. Brian

Teliho, a psychiatrist who first evaluated Harkness-Pastrana

about a year and a half after the accident, following a referral

from her attorney for depression after a suicide attempt. It is

undisputed, and evident in the record, that both doctors

testified that in their medical opinion, the collision was a

substantial factor in the conditions they diagnosed.

Nevertheless, the jury was entitled to determine the

cause of Harkness-Pastrana's injuries, not the medical witnesses,

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

as the jurors are the sole judges of all disputed facts and they

are free to discredit or discount the doctors' testimonies. See,

e.g., Dzurik v. Tamura, 44 Haw. 327, 330, 359 P.2d 164, 165

(1960) ("[i]t is for the trier of facts, not the medical

witnesses, to make a legal determination of the question of

causation."); Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea

Resort Co., 100 Hawai#i 97, 117–18, 58 P.3d 608, 628–29 (2002);

Weite v. Momohara, 124 Hawai#i 236, 254, 240 P.3d 899, 917 (App.

2010). The denial of a motion for new trial will not be
disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Kawamata Farms,

Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai#i 214, 251, 948 P.2d 1055,

1092 (1997); see also Petersen v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 53

Haw. 440, 441, 496 P.2d 4, 6 (1972) (discussing when a verdict is

clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence).

Here, there was substantial evidence presented to the

jury from which a reasonable person could conclude that Rasos's

negligent conduct was not a legal cause of Harkness-Pastrana's

injuries, including evidence concerning Harkness-Pastrana's pre-

existing degenerative spinal conditions, the amount of damage to

Harkness-Pastrana's vehicle, her declination of ambulance

transport and delayed treatment, testimony that she fell out of

bed the next day and had severe lower back pain, testimony

concerning Harkness-Pastrana's other activities (avid horseback

riding) that involve lower back trauma, other family-related

trauma, activities and post-collision events that might have

caused injuries, testimony that might have caused a reasonable

juror to discredit Harkness-Pastrana's testimony, and the

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

possibility that the jury could have determined that Harkness-

Pastrana's injuries were caused by Tajbakhsh, notwithstanding

Rasos's negligence. Accordingly, based on the record in this

case, we cannot conclude that the Circuit Court abused its

discretion when it entered the Order Denying Motion to Set Aside

Verdict.

(2-5) Harkness-Pastrana prevailed on the issue of

Rasos's negligence – the jury found that he was negligent.

Harkness-Pastrana's remaining points of error are nevertheless
directed at assertions of error concerning proof that Rasos was

negligent. We cannot discern any argument as to how these

assertions of error have any connection whatsoever to the

causation issue which underlies the jury verdict against

Harkness-Pastrana. Thus, any error would be harmless and we

cannot conclude that Harkness-Pastrana is entitled to relief from

the jury's verdict based on her remaining arguments.

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's October 28, 2021

Judgment and February 7, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Set Aside

Verdict are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 25, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Matson Kelley,
Alex Wilkins, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
(Kelley & Wilkins), Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Thomas Tsuchiyama, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee.

5