Cootey v. Sun Investment, Inc.

1 Citing brief

  1. Hisamatsu v. Niroula et al

    MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANT BANK OF HAWAII'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Filed September 19, 2007

    Hawaii law is similar. Donald M. Shaw vs. Santa Monica Bank, 920 F. Supp. 1080 (Haw. 1996), ("In order for the Plaintiffs to recover against the Defendant under a tort theory, a legal duty between the parties must exist"); Cootey v. Sun Inv., Inc., 68 Haw. 480, 484 (Haw. 1986) ("Fundamental in any determination of liability for negligence is the existence of duty owed by the putative tortfeasor to the injured person."). This sound policy was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 1174 (1993), in which the Court rejected a fraud claim arising out of a contract: "The distinction between tort and contract is well- grounded in common law, and divergent objectives underlie the remedies related in the two areas.