RICO against the Bowlings, it may do so in its affirmative cross-claim. Wfhirl-pool’s belief to the c 46 (2003) (adopting the approach set forth in the Second Restatement defining the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Doe Parents No. 1 v. Dep’t of Educ., 100 Hawai'i 34, 58 P.3d 545, (2002) (relying on Second Restatement for definition of duty set forth in the Second Restatement § 314A); Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Haw., 100 Hawai'i 149, 170, 58 P.3d 1196, 1217 (2002) (adopting Second Restatement § 577 by holding "If the circumstances indicated that communication to a third party is likely, however, a publication may properly be held to have occurred”); and see, McKenzie v. Hawai 'i Permanente Med. Group, 98 Hawai'i 296, 47 P.3d 1209 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 98
holding that second restatement  302 does not establish per se that a doctor owes a duty to the plaintiff it only describes the manner in which he may be negligent if he owed that duty holding that although violation of rules of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se such violations may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action and whether that duty was breached holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed holding defendant owes a duty to disclose where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal