HRS § 386-8 provides in pertinent part that: When a work injury for which compensation is payable under this chapter has been sustained under circumstances creating in some person other than the employer or another employee of the employer acting in the course of his [or her] employment a legal liability to pay damages on account thereof, the injured employee or his [or her] dependents ... may claim compensation under this chapter and recover damages from such third person. (Emphasis added.) HRS § 386-8 also provides, however, that “[ajnother employee of the same employer shall not be relieved of his [or her] liability as a third party, if the personal injury is caused by his [or her] wilful and wanton misconduct.” See also Hirasa v. Burtner, 68 Haw. 22, 25, 702 P.2d 772, 775 (1985) (<HOLDING>). B. Hawaii’s “Wilful and Wanton Misconduct”
holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act holding employee who suffered damages as a result of fire and explosion that occurred on the job could not establish a cause of action against nondiverse coemployee defendants under the intentional act exceptions to the workers compensation exclusivity provision and therefore defendant coemployees were fraudulently joined holding that if hrs  3868 allows an injured employee to file a direct action against his or her coemployee for wilful and wanton misconduct then logically a thirdparty plaintiff who is not a coemployee should also have the right to implead the wilful and wanton misconduct of the injured workers coemployee in both instances the liability for injuries sustained in the accident is allegedly due to the wilful and wanton misconduct of the injured workers coemployees holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional