Legal Opinion

Hawaiian Canneries Co. v. Dependents of Kali

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1959No. 4061Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1

*192OPINION OF

STAINBACK, J.

(Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.)

I concur in the conclusion of the majority herein that the parents were partially dependent upon the deceased and are entitled to compensation during the continuation of the condition of actual dependency. The court below in limiting such compensation to a period which would include only the minority of the deceased, were she living, has confused the rule for damages in a tort action for a parent’s loss of services of a minor with the rule relative to workmen’s compensation awards which are not based on tort.

While dissenting…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part · Stainback.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ewa Plantation Co. v. WilderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
  2. Ewa Plantation Co. v. WilderHawaii Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Forrest v. Theo. H. Davies & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API