Lawsuit Against Mid-Pacific Institute
Lawsuit Against Mid-Pacific Institute
Electronically Filed
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
FIRST CIRCUIT
JAMES J. BICKERTON 3085 1CCV-20-0000080
ROBERT S. MIYASHITA 9509 16-JAN-2020
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower 10:15 AM
745 Fort Street, Ste. 801
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Telephone: (808) 599-3811
Facsimile: (808) 694-3090
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
v.
MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE;
PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS;
WENDELL DAVIS as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of MARIA
DAVIS; RICHARD SALGADO;
MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John Does
1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-
10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non-
Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-
10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COME NOW Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as Personal
individually, and LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of
T.C., a minor, by and through their attorneys, BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP, and for this
DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10,
1. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI (“Plaintiffs”) were and are residents of the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.
Plaintiffs, at all material times, have been and are still married to each other.
2. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU is and was the
3. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI are and were natural parents and guardians of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased.
4. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI were and are natural parents and guardians of T.C., a minor.
5. At all times material to this Complaint, ALARIC CHIU was five years old at the
time of his untimely and horrific death from drowning as a consequence of an undisclosed and
highly unsafe kayaking activity conducted through its 2019 Spring Break Camp by Defendant
2
MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE (hereinafter “MPI”) and its employees/agents. ALARIC CHIU was
a camper/student enrolled in the 2019 Spring Break Camp (hereinafter “Subject Camp”) offered
6. At all times material to this Complaint, T.C. was seven-and-a-half years old. He
is the older brother of ALARIC CHIU and was also a camper/student enrolled in the Subject
Camp offered by Defendant MPI as part of its Extended Learning Program. He had a close and
7. T.C., a minor, was participating in the same excursion as his brother, ALARIC
CHIU, on the day of ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death. T.C., a minor, traveled in the
tour bus to Ka‘a‘awa beach with his younger brother. T.C., a minor, was on the beach at the time
his younger brother drowned directly off-shore as a result of the unsafe (and undisclosed to
Plaintiffs) kayaking camping activity. T.C., a minor, witnessed attempts to recover ALARIC
Chiu, was present when his younger brother’s body was carried out of the ocean, and witnessed
the recovery of the body. T.C., a minor, returned to Defendant MPI’s campus on the tour bus
without his younger brother while ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital.
8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant MPI was and is a Domestic Nonprofit
Corporation doing business in the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawai‘i as an educational
institution and incorporated in the State of Hawai‘i with its principal place of business located at
Preschool, Kindergarten and grades 1-12. Defendant MPI was founded in 1908. The tuition for
each student at Defendant MPI is approximately $25,000 per year. Defendant MPI has
10. Defendant MPI has an Extended Learning Program that offers a wide range of
3
afterschool, spring break, winter break and summer courses.
11. Defendant MPI offered the Subject Camp through its Extended Learning Program
to the public and existing MPI students. The charge was $550 per student for five days of
activities from March 25-29, 2019 between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm each day.
12. ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, and T.C., a minor, were both enrolled as
(hereinafter “PUA DAVIS”) is and was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and
14. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PUA DAVIS was hired and
employed by Defendant MPI as the Director and Coordinator of Defendant MPI’s Extended
Learning Program. Defendant PUA DAVIS is the daughter of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain
Wendell Davis and MARIA DAVIS, and she is the sister of Defendant
15. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PUA DAVIS was an employee
and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by estoppel of
Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment and/or agency
for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent her activities were
outside the course and scope of her employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to be outside the
course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control her under Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 317.
16. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS is and was at all
relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi.
17. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS was hired and
4
employed by Defendant MPI as the Assistant Supervisor of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning
Program. KAE DAVIS is the son of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and MARIA
18. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS was an employee
and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by estoppel of
Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment and/or agency
for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent his activities were
outside the course and scope of his employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to be outside the
course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control him under Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 317.
19. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant WENDELL DAVIS as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of MARIA DAVIS (hereinafter “Wendell Davis”) is and
was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi.
20. At all times material to this Complaint, MARIA DAVIS, deceased, was hired and
employed by Defendant MPI as the Program Supervisor of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning
Program. MARIA DAVIS is the wife of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and mother
21. At all times material to this Complaint, MARIA DAVIS, deceased, was an
employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by
estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment
and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent her
activities were outside the course and scope of her employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to
be outside the course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control her under Restatement
5
22. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant RICHARD SALGADO is and
was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi. Defendant RICHARD
SALGADO is the owner and resident of the property located at 51-390 Kamehameha Highway,
Ka‘a‘awa, Hawai‘i 96730 (hereinafter “Subject Property”). The Subject Property was used as a
staging area to host Defendant MPI and its campers/students as part of Defendant MPI’s day
supplied the Subject Kayak to Defendant MPI and/or its employees with the knowledge that the
Subject Kayak would be used as part of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program camp
activities.
24. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant RICHARD SALGADO was an
employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by
estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment
and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI.
is and was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of
Hawaiʻi.
is and was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi. Defendant
MELVIANETTE SALGADO is the owner and resident of the property located at the Subject
Property. The Subject Property was used as a staging area to host Defendant MPI and its
6
person and the Subject Kayak. Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO supplied the Subject
Kayak to Defendant MPI and/or its employees with the knowledge that the Subject Kayak would
was an employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent
by estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment
and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI.
time friends of Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS and MARIA DAVIS.
30. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 21-28, above, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as “SALGADOS”.
31. John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10,
Doe "Non-Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10
(collectively, the “Doe Defendants”) are sued herein under fictitious names for the reason that
their true names and identities are presently unknown to Plaintiffs except that they were in some
manner presently unknown to Plaintiffs, engaged in the activities alleged herein and/or are in
some manner legally responsible for the damages and/or injuries to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs pray
for leave to certify their true names, identities, capacities, activities and/or responsibilities when
the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs have been unable to identify said Doe Defendants despite
due diligence, including a review of pertinent medical records and/or the records of the
32. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 7-30, above, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as “Defendants”.
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that, at all times herein
7
mentioned, each of the Defendants, except as otherwise alleged, was the agent, servant,
employee and/or joint venture of the other Defendants, and each of them, and at all said times,
each Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment
and/or joint venture. Certain Defendants agreed and conspired among themselves, and with
certain other individuals and/or entities, to act, or not to act, in such a manner that resulted in the
wrongful and tragic death of ALARIC CHIU and injury to Plaintiffs; and such Defendants, as
co-conspirators, are liable for the acts, or failures to acts, of other Defendants.
34. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this
Complaint pursuant to HRS § 603-21.5, and has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant
to HRS § 634-35. Venue is appropriate in the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawai‘i
35. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been satisfied,
waived, or occurred.
36. At all times material to this Complaint, ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a
minor, were registered campers/students of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program’s 2019
37. On March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, both attended
the Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion, which was day four of the Extended Learning
Program 2019 Spring Break Camp. The plan for the Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion was
38. On the morning of ALARIC CHIU’s death on March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU
and his brother, T.C., were dropped off at Defendant MPI’s campus between 7:30 am and 8:00
8
am. The tour bus departed Defendant MPI’s campus at approximately 8:00 am and Defendant
39. Nine children, all minors ranging from grades Kindergarten through Fifth,
including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE
DAVIS, and MARIA DAVIS, deceased, a MPI high school student assistant, and the tour bus
driver, Paolo Migotti (hereinafter “Mr. Migotti”), were present for the Island Tour and Beach
Day Excursion.
40. After making a stop in Hale‘iwa at Matsumoto’s Shave Ice, Defendant MPI
and/or its employees unexpectedly informed Mr. Migotti that there was a change of plans and
41. Upon arrival sometime between 10:00 am and 11:00 am on March 28, 2019, Mr.
Migotti parked on the street in front of the Subject Property. Defendant RICHARD SALGADO
greeted the tour bus, entered the driver seat of the tour bus, and parked the tour bus onto the
Subject Property.
42. The campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor,
were instructed to exit the tour bus and place their belongings onto the Subject Property. After
getting settled in, the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor,
were taken to the beach located directly across the street from the Subject Property. The children
were allowed to swim in the shallow water and play on the sand.
Kayak) for Defendant MPI’s use while the campers/students were at the beach. Defendants
SALGADOS owned two kayaks – a single-person kayak and a two-person kayak - that were
44. Defendants SALGADOS did not offer the use of any life vests at the time the
9
Subject Kayak was supplied to Defendant MPI and/or its employees.
45. Defendants SALGADOS did not require the use of any life vests to any of the
foreseeable users of the Subject Kayak at the time the Subject Kayak was supplied to Defendant
46. Defendant RICHARD SALGADO carried the Subject Kayak to the beach area
where the campers/students were playing in the sand and in the water.
47. Prior to March 28, 2019, Defendants did not have any policies or procedures
48. The kayaking activity was not a listed activity that was included in Defendant
campers/students.
50. The campers’/students’ parents, including ALARIC CHIU’s and his brother,
51. Plaintiffs did not give their consent to allow their children to participate in any
kayaking activity.
52. Once the Subject Kayak was delivered to the beach area where the
campers/students were swimming and playing on the beach, Defendants enticed and encouraged
53. Defendants took a first group of campers/students on the Subject Kayak and
54. Defendants then took a second group of campers/students out on the Subject
Kayak. ALARIC CHIU and two other children were placed onto the Subject Kayak with
MARIA DAVIS.
10
55. None of the children, including ALARIC CHIU, were equipped with life vests
56. Defendants did not require or have life vests available for any of the children,
57. Hawaii law requires the use of life vests when kayaking with children 12 years
old or younger. See HAR §13-243-1(b)(“no person shall operate or anchor offshore a
recreational vessel unless all children under the age of thirteen wear a properly fitted personal
flotation device whenever the vessel is underway on the ocean waters or navigable streams of the
state”).
58. In addition, Defendants did not have any knowledge of any of the children,
60. Once the children were aboard the Subject Kayak, MARIA DAVIS paddled the
three children, including ALARIC CHIU, farther out into the ocean. MARIA DAVIS was
observed near the first set of breakers approximately 150 yards from shore.
61. Upon information and belief, the Subject Kayak, a two-person kayak, occupied by
four people, was hit by a wave approximately 150 yards from shore.
62. One of the surviving child victims described being hit by a “tsunami.”
63. The occupants, including ALARIC CHIU, were thrown from the Subject Kayak.
64. After the occupants were thrown from the Subject Kayak, MARIA DAVIS
65. The two surviving child victims grabbed hold of the capsized Subject Kayak.
66. ALARIC CHIU fought to stay afloat, but he did not know how to swim and
11
ultimately succumbed to drowning.
67. At some point in the sequence of events, after instructing the children to retrieve
the kayak, MARIA DAVIS became unresponsive, possibly as the result of cardiac arrest.
68. The two surviving child victims held onto the capsized Subject Kayak and
69. The capsized Subject Kayak was finally observed from shore after a considerable
time had passed from the time the Subject Kayak departed the shoreline.
70. At approximately 11:30 am, a bystander called 911 to report an emergency. The
bystander heard a child’s voice coming from the water and observed a capsized kayak.
71. Upon information and belief, at some time after the Subject Kayak capsized,
Defendant PUA DAVIS noticed the capsized Subject Kayak and did not see anyone on board the
kayak.
72. Defendant PUA DAVIS assumed the children, including ALARIC CHIU, and her
mother, MARIA DAVIS, were in the water approximately 150 yards from shore.
73. When Defendant PUA DAVIS could not observe anyone on the capsized Subject
Kayak after additional time had passed, Defendant PUA DAVIS decided to paddle out towards
74. Defendant PUA DAVIS was progressing slowly to the capsized Subject Kayak,
so Defendant KAE DAVIS finally decided to cross the street to retrieve the one-person kayak
75. Defendant KAE DAVIS, without any sense of urgency, took the time to rinse off
the one-person kayak before transporting the kayak to the beach. However, before paddling out
to the Subject Kayak, Defendant KAE DAVIS recognized two female campers/students on body
boards returning back to shore. Defendant KAE DAVIS first assisted the two female
12
campers/students on body boards return to shore before paddling out to the capsized Subject
Kayak.
76. When Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS finally reached the Subject
Kayak, one surviving child victim was observed on top of the Subject Kayak and the other
surviving child victim was observed holding onto the side of the Subject Kayak in the water.
77. ALARIC CHIU was observed shortly after floating face up in the water. He was
78. First responders arrived to the scene, assisted with transporting ALARIC CHIU’s
body to shore, and carried ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body out of the water. T.C., a minor,
ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, was present at the scene and witnessed these events.
79. ALARIC CHIU’s body was then transported to Castle Medical Center.
80. T.C., a minor, ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, returned back to Defendant MPI’s
campus on the tour bus without his younger brother, ALARIC CHIU.
81. Defendants did not inform and/or delayed informing Plaintiffs of their child’s
drowning.
82. Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI, ALARIC CHIU’s mother, received a vague text
message from Defendant MPI requesting that she contact Defendant PUA DAVIS.
83. Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI, ALARIC CHIU’s mother, informed her husband
and father of ALARIC CHIU, Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU, of the text message since she is not
fluent in English.
84. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU, who was in Japan at the time of the incident for
business, contacted Defendant PUA DAVIS, who provided very limited information about his
85. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU had to conduct his own investigation and contacted
13
Castle Medical Center directly to inquire about his son, ALARIC CHIU’s condition, at which
time he received the devastating news that ALARIC CHIU was dead and that ALARIC CHIU
86. ALARIC CHIU, who was five years old, was pronounced dead on March 28,
CAUSES OF ACTION
87. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
88. On March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU, a minor, died a horrific death from
Incident”).
89. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs exercised all appropriate due
care and in no way contributed to the occurrence of the Subject Incident and/or the wrongful and
untimely death of ALARIC CHIU and resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.
90. Defendants, to whom ALARIC CHIU, a minor and deceased, and T.C., a minor,
had been entrusted by their parents, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, at all
times relevant stood in loco parentis for ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor. Accordingly,
Defendants had a special relationship with ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and their parents,
whereby Defendants owed them a duty of care to take whatever precautions were reasonably
necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and to control
and/or warn against harms that were reasonably foreseeable and/or known to them.
91. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant MPI had a duty to ensure all
persons, including MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS, RICHARD
14
SALGADO, and MELVIANETTE SALGADO, as its actual or apparent agent or employee or in
furtherance of its business is fit and competent to maintain a safe school environment and to not
entrust said persons with its minor campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., on its
behalf in furtherance of its regular business activity, by persons unfit to ensure the safety of its
campers/students.
92. Defendants had a duty to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU,
and T.C., a minor, and their parents, to provide a reasonably safe environment for minor
campers/students enrolled in Defendant MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp; Defendants had a duty
to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and their parents,
to not create a dangerous condition, which placed ALARIC CHIU at greater risk of injury;
Defendants had a duty to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a
minor, and their parents to provide proper warnings of the dangers associated with the improper
and unplanned kayaking activity; and Defendants had a duty to control, supervise and train their
93. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were negligent and/or grossly
negligent in the planning, preparation, training, direction, supervision and/or control of activities
which involved the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, enrolled in
Defendant MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp, which put ALARIC CHIU in severe risk of danger.
Supplying the Subject Kayak without proper safety equipment or instructions, allowing and
instructing campers/students of minor age, including ALARIC CHIU, to board a kayak and
paddling these innocent and trusting children out into the ocean without exercising reasonable
care and acting with a conscious indifference to consequences and civil obligations, is
provide a reasonably safe school/camping environment to all of the students, including ALARIC
15
CHIU and T.C., a minor, enrolled in Defendants MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp.
94. Defendants breached their duties of due care owed to Plaintiffs in their actions
and inactions in one or more, but not limited to, of the following ways:
b. Failing to provide adequate safety equipment for use with the Subject Kayak;
d. Failing to obtain informed consent of the kayaking activity and its inherent risks;
h. Failing to take proper and necessary safety precautions against drowning and
injuries that were reasonably foreseeable;
j. Failing to inspect the scene to ensure safe conditions for the campers/students;
o. Failing to comply with state and federal law regarding Portable Flotation Device
(“PFD”) use for children;
16
proper use of the Subject Kayak;
r. Failing to warn Plaintiffs and ALARIC CHIU of the dangers and risks associated
with the kayaking activity;
s. Failing to train its employees and/or agents of proper safety policies and
procedures;
u. Failing to warn Plaintiffs of the dangers and risks associated with the kayaking
activity;
95. The plan for the dangerous and unsafe kayaking activity was known or should
have been known to Defendants. The conduct of Defendants described herein was negligent and
grossly negligent.
Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence and gross negligence of their employees
and/or agents (including but not limited to their apparent agents and/or an ostensible agents
and/or agents by estoppel and/or persons who acted with its apparent authority), including but
not limited to MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS, RICHARD
and/or agents occurred within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant MPI
98. Defendants, jointly and severally, were negligent and/or grossly negligent in their
17
acts and/or omissions, in that they fell far below the acceptable and reasonable standards of care
99. The aforesaid negligence and/or gross negligence of Defendants, jointly and
severally, was a substantial contributing factor and legal cause of the death of ALARIC CHIU
and the resulting severe and permanent injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
100. The acts and omissions of the above-named Defendants, furthermore, were in
violation of State of Hawai`i and Federal laws, which required that the use of proper PFD’s for
children under the age of 13 aboard a kayak, were also negligent per se.
101. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross
negligence of Defendants, ALARIC CHIU suffered from an untimely and horrific death resulting
in his own injuries prior to his demise and in damages suffered by Plaintiffs in amounts as shall
be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment
of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and
future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.
102. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and
reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive
103. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
104. Defendant MPI engaged in negligent hiring, retention and supervision, in that
MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS should not have been hired in
the first instance and their employment was in clear violation of an existing nepotism policy.
105. Defendant PUA DAVIS was hired as the Director and Coordinator of Defendant
18
MPI’s Extended Learning Program. She is the daughter of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell
Davis and MARIA DAVIS. Defendant KAE DAVIS was hired as the Assistant Supervisor for
the 2019 Spring Break Camp. He is the brother of Defendant PUA DAVIS and son of Defendant
MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and MARIA DAVIS. MARIA DAVIS was hired as the Program
Supervisor for the Extended Learning Program. She is the mother of Defendants PUA DAVIS
and KAE DAVIS and wife of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis.
106. MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were not hired
and employed by Defendant MPI based on qualification and experience and with child safety in
mind.
107. MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were not
qualified and properly trained for child safety relating to off-campus and outdoor excursions,
especially kayaking activities, at the time of their hiring and throughout their employment.
108. Upon hiring and during employment, Defendant MPI failed to take reasonable
measures to ensure that MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were
qualified to ensure and maintain a safe school environment for its campers/students, including
109. Defendant MPI had actual or constructive knowledge of MARIA DAVIS and
Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS’ incompetence and lack of fitness as camp
counselors with supervisory authority who were ultimately responsible for and entrusted with
110. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross
negligence of Defendants, ALARIC CHIU suffered from an untimely and horrific death resulting
in his own injuries prior to his demise and in damages suffered by Plaintiffs in amounts as shall
be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment
19
of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and
future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.
111. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and
reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive
112. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
113. Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI lost their youngest son,
ALARIC CHIU, who was five years old at the time of his untimely and horrific death.
114. Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI struggle with the reality of
their son’s unnecessary death especially knowing that ALARIC CHIU died as a result of a
school kayaking activity that was poorly planned and never disclosed to or authorized by
Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI; that this kayaking activity was intended to be
a “surprise” for the children (and the parents of the children); there were no safety policies and
procedures that existed and/or were in effect for off-campus activities, including the kayaking
activity; that the Subject Kayak was supplied for the campers’/students’ enjoyment without
proper assurances and equipment; that Defendants overloaded the two-person Subject Kayak
with four people in violation of manufacturer’s instructions and a complete disregard of common
sense; that ALARIC CHIU and the other children were not equipped with life vests in violation
of and required by state and federal law; that ALARIC CHIU could not swim; that ALARIC
CHIU was underwater for at least 30 to 40 minutes; that there was a considerable delay to
recognize that the Subject Kayak capsized; that there was a considerable delay to respond to the
capsized Subject Kayak; that their other son and ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, T.C., a minor,
20
was on the beach at the time ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body was carried out of the ocean; that
T.C., a minor, had to ride back on the tour bus without his brother, ALARIC CHIU, while
ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital; that this was the last memory T.C.,
a minor, had of his brother; that the communication by Defendants to Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU
and KANA INUBUSHI to inform them of their son’s situation, injury and/or death after his
drowning was unsympathetic, vague, and/or nonexistent; that Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU was in
Japan for business when he was notified and learned of his son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that
Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI is limited in her ability to communicate in English and was required
to wait for someone to translate the devastating news to her at which time she became informed
of her son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI’s last
observation of their son was on the metal hospital table with his lifeless, cold, and blueish body
laid on top; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI have to find the strength to
appear to be strong for the sake of their son, T.C., a minor, even when they have an extreme
difficulty finding strength for themselves; and, that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI have to watch their son, Plaintiff T.C., a minor, miss his brother dearly every single
day.
outrageous.
116. Defendants acted without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency.
117. Defendants’ acts resulted in severe mental and emotional distress to Plaintiffs
LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, the parents of ALARIC CHIU, deceased, and T.C., a
minor. Since ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI suffered and experienced injuries that include, but are not limited to, severe mental
and emotional distress, pain and suffering, depression, nightmares, anxiety, post-traumatic stress,
21
and physical injuries, among other injuries.
gross negligence, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI suffered in amounts as shall
be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment
of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and
future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.
119. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and
reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive
120. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
121. Plaintiff T.C., a minor, lost his younger brother, ALARIC CHIU, who was five
122. Plaintiff T.C., a minor, struggles with the reality of his younger brother’s
unnecessary death especially knowing that ALARIC CHIU died as a result of a school kayaking
activity that was poorly planned and never disclosed to or authorized by Plaintiffs LUCIUS
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI; that this kayaking activity was intended to be a “surprise” for the
children (and the parents of the children); there were no safety policies and procedures that
existed and/or were in effect for off-campus activities, including the kayaking activity; that the
Subject Kayak was supplied for the campers/students enjoyment without proper assurances and
equipment; that Defendants overloaded the two-person Subject Kayak with four people in
ALARIC CHIU and the other children were not equipped with life vests in violation of and
22
required by state and federal law; that ALARIC CHIU could not swim; that ALARIC CHIU was
underwater for at least 30 to 40 minutes; that there was a considerable delay to recognize that the
Subject Kayak capsized; that there was a considerable delay to respond to the capsized Subject
Kayak; that T.C., a minor, was on the beach at the time ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body was
carried out of the ocean; that T.C., a minor, had to ride back on the tour bus without his brother,
ALARIC CHIU, while ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital; that this
was the last memory T.C., a minor, had of his brother; that the communication by Defendants to
Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI to inform them of their son’s situation, injury
and/or death after his drowning was unsympathetic, vague, and/or nonexistent; that Plaintiff
LUCIUS CHIU was in Japan for business when he was notified and learned of his son, ALARIC
CHIU’s death; that Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI is limited in her ability to communicate in
English and was required to wait for someone to translate the devastating news to her at which
time she became informed of her son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU
and KANA INUBUSHI’s last observation of their son was on the metal hospital table with his
lifeless, cold, and blueish body laid on top; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI have to find the strength to appear to be strong for the sake of their son, T.C., a
minor, even when they have an extreme difficulty finding strength for themselves; and, that
Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI have to watch their son, T.C., a minor, miss
outrageous.
124. Defendants acted without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency.
125. Defendants’ acts resulted in severe mental and emotional distress to T.C., a minor,
the brother of ALARIC CHIU, deceased. Since ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death,
23
T.C., a minor, suffered and experienced injuries that include, but are not limited to, severe
mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, depression, nightmares, difficulty sleeping,
gross negligence, T.C., a minor, suffered in amounts as shall be proven at trial for pain and
suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment of enjoyment of life, loss of
consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and future earnings losses, and
127. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and
reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive
128. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
130. Defendants knew and were aware that a failure to exercise reasonable care and to
provide and maintain a safe environment for children within well-established standards of
professional and educational care to campers/students would result in harmful and damaging
parents of the enrolled campers/students, including Plaintiffs, the risks associated with the failure
to exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a safe environment for children within
24
132. Defendants negligently failed to explain, disclose and/or misrepresented to the
parents of the enrolled campers/students, including Plaintiffs, the extreme dangers of a failure to
exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a safe environment for children within
133. Through Defendants’ omission of material facts, i.e., unplanned kayaking activity
without obtaining parent’s consent, Defendants induced a false belief, and false sense of security
134. Plaintiffs could not have reasonably been expected to know or discover the truth
about the risks associated with a failure to exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a
safe environment for children within well-established standards of professional and educational
care, or were prevented or misled from obtaining such truthful information. Plaintiffs justifiably
135. Given the superior and unique vantage point Defendants had as an educational
institution, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants to assume the role and responsibilities of a
136. Despite the knowledge possessed by Defendants who assumed the custody of
Plaintiffs’ children and the fact that Plaintiffs’ children were deprived of the protections from
their parents, Defendants failed to act reasonably by promoting and engaging in a kayaking
activity that was never disclosed to the Plaintiffs, offering the kayaking activity to Plaintiffs’
children without Plaintiffs’ consent, by supplying a two-person kayak without ensuring the
proper use of the Subject Kayak and compliance with state and federal law, and by implementing
and enforcing adequate safety policies and procedures relating to off-campus activities, including
kayaking activities, and child safety. The inaction and concealment by Defendants increased the
risk of suffering and death for ALARIC CHIU and long-term injuries to Plaintiffs and their
25
family.
137. As a substantial contributing factor and legal cause of the aforesaid negligence
138. As a substantial contributing factor and direct and proximate result of the
Plaintiffs suffered pain and suffering, wage loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or
diminishment of enjoyment of life, and such other special and general damages as will be proved
at trial.
139. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and
reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive
140. The allegations made in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by
activities, and services that are offered to children and their families. These educational
programs, activities, and services lack reasonably safe policies and procedures rendering such
educational programs, activities, and services extremely dangerous and at a high risk of harm for
its students.
142. Defendants appreciate and have knowledge of such benefits and risks.
143. Under principles of equity and good conscience, it would be unjust for Defendant
MPI to be permitted to retain the revenues they received at the expense of innocent children and
their families, like Plaintiffs, while refusing to pay damages as a result of their unlawful actions
or otherwise failing to prevent such injuries and death. These revenues should fund the creation,
26
implementation, and enforcement of reasonable policies and procedures and the promotion of
144. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by
147. Defendant MPI, who is in the business of ownership and/or operation and/or
maintenance of an educational institution and program, specifically the 2019 Spring Break Camp
through Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program that was open to the public, including
Plaintiffs and their children, within the State of Hawaiʻi, is engaged in the conduct of trade or
commerce.
148. HRS § 480-2(a), declares unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or
149. Defendant MPI violated § 480-2(a), by the conduct alleged above including, but
not limited to, unfairly or deceptively stating the nature, extent and effect of its 2019 Spring
Break Camp it intended to provide to Plaintiffs and their children. Defendant MPI has assumed
the role of each student’s parent under the doctrine of loco parentis when the students are in
Defendant MPI’s custody. Defendant MPI’s promotion of a safe school environment and
emphasis on its reputation of a prestigious educational institution creates an effect to attract and
induce the community to consider enrollment of potential students who are the children of
Hawai‘i. However, Defendant MPI has failed to and continues to fail to disclose its risks
associated with its inadequate programs that are lacking of such policies and procedures relating
27
150. Defendant MPI’s deceptive or unfair conduct created a likelihood of consumer
confusion or of misunderstanding.
151. The acts and practices of Defendant MPI described above were “unfair” and
“deceptive” within the meaning of HRS Section 480-2. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the
unfair and deceptive acts and practices alleged above. Plaintiffs bargained for a safe school
environment and educational program where they could trust Defendant MPI to provide the
necessary security, supervision and care to their children. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI relied on Defendant MPI and had a false sense of trust and security. ALARIC CHIU
died an untimely and horrific death from drowning as a result of an undisclosed kayaking
activity that was never considered by the Plaintiffs at any time, but especially prior to and at the
time of the payment of the registration fees in the amount of $550 per student required by
Defendant MPI in order to enroll ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, in the 2019
152. Defendant MPI gained an unfair advantage in competition with other professional
and educational institutions that (1) made fair and non-deceptive disclosures of their services and
(2) thereby allowed campers/students and their parents to fairly evaluate the assumed benefit
from the educational services that they sought. The nature of the competition was the
their parents by offering comparable services, i.e., safe school environment and educational
153. By concealing the actual and unsafe and unprepared nature of the services being
offered, Defendant MPI attracted campers/students and their parents, including Plaintiffs, who
154. By virtue of the foregoing, the conduct alleged herein constituted unfair methods
28
of competition.
155. As a result of the unfair or deceptive acts and practices and/or the unfair methods
156. As redress for Defendant MPI’s repeated and ongoing violations of HRS § 480-
2(a), Plaintiffs are entitled to, inter alia, damages, treble damages, statutory damages, and
as follows:
H. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under HRS Chapter 480 and contract;
K. For costs and disbursements assessed by Plaintiffs in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to applicable law; and,
L. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
29
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 16, 2020.
30
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI‘I
v.
MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE;
PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS;
WENDELL DAVIS as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of MARIA
DAVIS; RICHARD SALGADO;
MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John Does
1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-
10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non-
Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-
10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,
Defendants.
the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of T.C., a minor, by and through
their attorneys, BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP, hereby demand trial by jury on all issues
triable herein.
2
STATE OF HAWAl'I CASE NUMBER
SUMMONS
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT
FIRST CIRCUIT
PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANT(S)
LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as Personal MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE; PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
Representative of the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS; WENDELL DAVIS as the
deceased, KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS Personal Representative of the Estate of MARIA DAVIS;
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and RICHARD SALGADO; MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John
guardians of T.C., a minor, Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe
Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non- Profit" Organizations 1-10,
Doe Trusts 1-10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,
plaintiff's attorney, whose address is stated above, an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within
20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the date of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ON
PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
COURT PERMITS, IN WRITING ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING THOSE HOURS.
A FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT IN AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING PERSON OR PARTY.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other applicable state and federal laws, if you require a
reasonable accommodation for a disability, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Circuit Court Administration Office on
OAHU- Phone No. 808-539-4400, TTY 808-539-4853, FAX 539-4402, at least ten (10) working days prior to your hearing or
appointment date.