Background
On January 4, 2022, Powell tripped and fell on broken tiles at the front entrance of the Century Square building in Honolulu and sustained injuries. He filed suit against AOAO Century Square, Hawaiiana Management Company, the Roman Catholic Church in the State of Hawaii, First Insurance Company of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii, alleging negligence based on the defendants’ failure to maintain safe premises.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on security camera video footage showing, in their view, no broken tiles in the area where Powell fell and depicting Powell falling due to being unsteady on his feet. They also submitted a declaration from the property’s general manager confirming he found no broken tiles upon inspection after the incident. The circuit court granted summary judgment, finding that Powell failed to present admissible evidence to refute the defendants’ video and photographic evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. The court held that Powell’s declaration—in which he testified that he tripped over damaged tiles and noted that some tiles about 15 feet away were so badly damaged they had been cordoned off—created genuine issues of material fact as to both causation and whether the defendants knew or should have known of a hazardous condition.
The court also found that Powell’s challenges to the accuracy and clarity of the defendants’ video footage (shot from 20-50 feet above ground without sufficient close-ups to determine if tiles were broken or uneven) raised genuine disputes about the evidence. Under Hawaii law, the court explained, an affidavit need not be corroborated to defeat summary judgment and can be self-serving and based on the affiant’s own perception. The court distinguished this case from the recent Bellamy v. City & County of Honolulu decision, where summary judgment was affirmed based on undisputed, unambiguous video evidence, noting that here Powell specifically challenged the video’s clarity and completeness.
Key Takeaways
- In premises liability cases, a plaintiff’s sworn declaration describing the accident can defeat summary judgment even when confronted with video evidence, so long as the plaintiff raises credible challenges to the video’s accuracy or completeness
- An affidavit need not be corroborated or free from self-interest to create a genuine issue of material fact under Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(e)
- A plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by questioning a defendant’s video evidence—challenges to camera angle, lighting, distance, or lack of close-ups can establish a genuine dispute for a jury
- Courts must view evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when reviewing summary judgment
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for premises liability plaintiffs in Hawaii. It establishes that video evidence, even when presented by defendants, does not automatically result in summary judgment if the plaintiff raises credible questions about the video’s clarity, accuracy, or completeness. The ruling reinforces that factual disputes—particularly regarding what caused an accident—belong before a jury, not decided by judges on summary judgment.
For property owners and managers, the decision means that surveillance footage alone may not be sufficient to dispose of premises liability claims at summary judgment if the plaintiff testifies to a different version of events and questions the evidence’s reliability. The case also illustrates Hawaii’s liberal approach to affidavits at the summary judgment stage and highlights the importance of specific challenges to documentary evidence in defeating dispositive motions.