������Ƶ

Hawaii’s famous sun may have taken the blame for an accident after a state worker driving through Lahaina struck a blind person crossing the street, but taxpayers are the ones who will pay.

An employee of the Department of Land and Natural Resources was turning his vehicle and didn’t see a man in the crosswalk because “his vision was momentarily blocked by the early morning sunlight shining in his eyes,” according to the Attorney General’s office. A $30,000 settlement agreement was reached in the case.

It is one of nine claims — together totaling $683,650 — that the AG has submitted so far this year to the Legislature, which must give final approval.

The number of claims typically grows throughout the legislative session, so the final cash tally is likely to be higher by the time lawmakers adjourn in May.

, the legislation that lawmakers use to approve the money, cleared the Judiciary and Labor Committee earlier this month after an amendment that added two more claims. The bill is headed to the Ways and Means Committee next.

Some of the cases offer insight into how the AG assesses the risk of losing more taxpayer money by fighting a claim in court rather than by agreeing on a settlement.

Here’s the AG’s on a $25,000 settlement for a woman who was hit by a vehicle while crossing the street in Kailua.

A pedestrian was struck by a vehicle near the intersection of Kalanianaole Highway and Kanapuu Drive in Kailua. There is a crosswalk across the highway located on the Kailua side of the intersection. On that night, Plaintiff took a cab to visit her children who lived in Waimanalo. When the cabbie learned that she did not have enough money for the fare, he dropped Plaintiff off at a bus stop on the Kailua bound side instead of the Waimanalo bound side of the highway. Plaintiff crossed the highway to get to the bus stop on the Waimanalo bound side. A vehicle heading toward Waimanalo hit Plaintiff and claims it was too dark to see Plaintiff. Plaintiff intends to prove that the site was dangerously dark because the State should have had increased foot candles/lumens of the streetlights and that overgrown tree branches obscured the streetlights.

The State would likely prevail at trial because of the strength of its expert witnesses when compared with the weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and the fact that an independent witness had adequate street lighting to see Plaintiff crossing the highway. However, it would be a non-jury trial before a trial judge who has a history of sympathizing with Plaintiffs. Therefore, it was recommended that the State counter Plaintiffs’ settlement demand of $750,000, with the amount of one-half of the costs to bring the State’s four expert witnesses from the mainland for trial, rather than risk a possible judgment in a wrongful death case, the State’s proportionate share of which could be in excess of $100,000.

The testimony seems to indicate that the AG thinks the state would win the case, but doesn’t want to risk losing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

The biggest claim, by far, comes from Bruce Menin. He is asking the state to reissue an outdated check for $421,346 that he says he never received in 2009.

The AG’s special assistant, Anne Lopez, said the state sent Menin’s tax refund to the wrong address and didn’t have a forwarding address. He contacted the Department of Taxation four years later to ask for the check to be sent once again, resulting in the claim that lawmakers are set to approve.

In another case, the state has reached a $50,000 settlement with a former nurse who claims the Department of Public Safety discriminated against her because she is Filipino and has different religious beliefs.

Her economic expert estimated the potential damages at $2.7 million. The state expert calculated worst-case potential damages of $250,000, including attorney’s fees. In the end, the two sides settled for far less.

Track the progress of the state claims bill .

• Contact Nathan Eagle via email at neagle@civilbeat.com or Twitter at .