Earl Deponte v. Kenneth Kamada

42 F.3d 1399 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Earl DePONTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth KAMADA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-15866. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1994. * Decided Nov. 17, 1994. Before: BROWNING, TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 DePonte argues that Kamada did not prove that he was entitled to the Hawaii shield against tort liability because he offered no proof that he was insured. There was no evidence either way. Parker v. Nakaoka, 722 P.2d 1028 (Haw.1986), generally places the burden of proof on the plaintiff, to show that his case is excepted from the bar against tort liability. Parker does not necessarily control because both the facts and part of the rationale could arguably be distinguished. Nevertheless, a broader rather than a narrower reading of Parker commends itself to us as the most likely construction of Hawaii law. A broader reading, generally shifting the burden to the…