Hawaii
Medical Malpractice Laws in Hawaii (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Hawaii has its own set of deadlines, a damages limit, and an unusual pre-suit requirement for medical malpractice claims. A claimant generally must submit the matter to a state inquiry and conciliation panel before filing suit, and Hawaii caps pain-and-suffering damages while leaving economic losses uncapped. This page explains the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, the damages cap, the pre-suit panel process, and the wrongful-death rules. It is general legal information, not legal advice.
Statute of Limitations in Hawaii
Hawaii's medical tort limitations statute, HRS 657-7.3, generally requires a claim to be brought within two years after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury. This discovery rule means the clock often starts when the patient learns of the harm and its connection to the medical care, rather than on the date of treatment.
The statute applies broadly to claims against physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, chiropractors, physical therapists, and licensed hospitals based on alleged professional negligence or error.
Statute of Repose
Hawaii also imposes an outer limit. Under HRS 657-7.3, a medical tort action may not be brought more than six years after the date of the act or omission that caused the injury or death, regardless of when the injury was discovered. This six-year repose period is tolled for any period during which the provider knew of the act, error, or omission and failed to disclose it. In that situation the period can be paused until the patient discovers the malpractice.

Damage Caps in Hawaii
Hawaii caps noneconomic 'pain and suffering' damages at a maximum of $375,000 under HRS 663-8.7. That figure is one of the inputs our Hawaii settlement calculator uses to sketch a possible range for a claim. This is a general tort cap that applies to most personal-injury actions, including medical malpractice. It is a fixed figure and is not adjusted for inflation.
The cap is narrow in scope. It limits the statutory category of pain and suffering as defined in HRS 663-8.5, and it does not limit economic damages such as past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, or the cost of future care. The cap also does not apply to certain tort actions listed in HRS 663-10.9(2). Unlike some states, Hawaii's noneconomic cap has not been struck down and remains in force in 2026.
No cap guarantees any particular award. The amount of any case still depends on the evidence and the specific facts.
Pre-Suit Requirements: The Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel
Hawaii has an important pre-filing step. Under HRS 671-12, a person with concerns about a possible medical tort generally must submit a written inquiry to the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel before a lawsuit based on those circumstances may be filed in a Hawaii court. The inquiry must state the facts and name the parties known to the claimant.
The panel typically includes an attorney chairperson experienced in personal-injury practice and a licensed physician or surgeon. The process is intended to encourage early resolution and reduce litigation costs. Hawaii later repealed its Patients' Compensation Fund provisions, but the panel requirement in Chapter 671 remains part of the pre-suit process.
Filing the inquiry stops the clock rather than burning it. Under HRS 671-18, filing with the panel, or with an approved alternative dispute resolution provider, tolls any applicable statute of limitations, and the tolling continues until sixty days after notice of the panel's termination, or notification that the alternative dispute resolution process is complete, is mailed or delivered to the parties. If the proceedings are not completed within twelve months, the limitations period resumes running and the claimant may commence suit.
HRS 671-16 sets out when litigation may actually begin. A claimant may go to court only after the panel proceedings have been terminated under HRS 671-15, after a party has participated in alternative dispute resolution under HRS 671-16.6, or after the twelve-month period in HRS 671-18 has expired. Under HRS 671-16.6(c), all parties may also agree in writing to send the matter directly to an approved alternative dispute resolution provider without first submitting it to the panel.
Affidavit of Merit and Expert Requirements
Hawaii does require an expert consultation certificate. It attaches to the panel inquiry rather than to the court complaint, which is why it is easy to miss. Under HRS 671-12.5, any inquiry filed with the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel must be accompanied by a certificate declaring that the claimant or the claimant's attorney consulted at least one physician licensed in Hawaii or another state who is knowledgeable or experienced in the same medical specialty as the health care professional named, or in a specialty as closely related as practicable, and concluded on the basis of that consultation that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing the inquiry.
The statute allows two alternative certificates. If a statute of limitations would impair the claim before the consultation can be obtained, the claimant may certify that instead and then file the consultation certificate within ninety days after filing the inquiry. If the claimant or the attorney made a good-faith attempt to obtain the consultation and the physician contacted would not agree to consult, the claimant may certify that. A claimant relying solely on a failure to inform of the consequences of a procedure, meaning an informed-consent claim, is exempt under subsection (b) but must certify that the claim rests on that theory alone.
This is a filing bar, not a formality. HRS 671-12.5(d) provides that unless a certificate is filed under subsection (a) or (b), the panel shall not receive the inquiry for filing. Because the panel inquiry is itself a precondition to suit under HRS 671-12, a missing certificate stops the claim before it ever reaches a courtroom.
At trial, expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and to show how a provider departed from it, because these are matters outside the common knowledge of a jury.

Who Can Be Liable and Comparative Negligence
Physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other licensed providers can be liable for failing to meet the professional standard of care, and hospitals may be responsible for the acts of their employees.
Hawaii follows modified comparative negligence under HRS 663-31. A plaintiff whose negligence is not greater than the negligence of the defendant or defendants may still recover, but any damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault. A plaintiff who is found more than 50% at fault is barred from recovery.
Wrongful-Death Medical Malpractice
When malpractice causes death, Hawaii's wrongful-death statute, HRS 663-3, allows the deceased's legal representative or statutory survivors, such as a spouse, children, and parents, to bring a claim. The limitations period for a wrongful-death claim is generally two years, typically running from the date of death. The legal representative may also recover certain expenses, such as the reasonable costs of the last illness and burial, on behalf of the estate.
How to Evaluate and Preserve a Potential Claim
If you may have a claim, collect your records and key dates, then have a Hawaii medical malpractice lawyer prepare the panel inquiry before the two-year deadline, starting with a free consultation (attorney advertising). Many malpractice attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning fees are typically paid only out of a recovery. No attorney can guarantee a result or a dollar amount, and only a licensed professional reviewing your records can evaluate your individual situation.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Hawaii?
The general deadline is 2 years from when you discover, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury, under HRS 657-7.3. A 6-year statute of repose sets an absolute outer limit measured from the act or omission, subject to tolling for any period a provider knew of and failed to disclose the act, error, or omission. Filing an inquiry with the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel tolls the limitations period under HRS 671-18. Because the rules are fact-specific, confirm your exact deadline with a licensed Hawaii attorney.
Does Hawaii cap medical malpractice damages?
Yes, in part. Hawaii caps 'pain and suffering' damages at $375,000 under HRS 663-8.7, and the cap is in force and not inflation-adjusted. It applies only to the statutory pain-and-suffering category. Economic damages such as medical bills and lost earnings are not capped.
Do I need an expert affidavit to file a malpractice case in Hawaii?
Yes, though it is filed earlier than in most states. Hawaii does not attach a certificate of merit to the court complaint, but under HRS 671-12.5 the inquiry you file with the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel must be accompanied by a certificate stating that you or your attorney consulted a qualified physician and concluded there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for the inquiry. Under subsection (d) the panel will not receive the inquiry for filing without that certificate, and the panel inquiry is a precondition to suit. Alternative certificates cover a closing limitations deadline, with the consultation certificate due within 90 days, and a failed good-faith attempt to find a consulting physician. Claims resting solely on informed consent are exempt. Expert testimony is still generally required to prove the standard of care at trial.
What is the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel?
It is a state pre-suit panel under HRS 671-12. A person with concerns about a possible medical tort generally must submit a written inquiry to the panel before filing a lawsuit. The panel includes an attorney chairperson and a physician and is designed to encourage early resolution. Under HRS 671-16, you may proceed to court after the panel proceedings are terminated, after alternative dispute resolution under HRS 671-16.6, or after the twelve-month period in HRS 671-18 has expired.
Is there a statute of repose for medical malpractice in Hawaii?
Yes. Under HRS 657-7.3, a medical tort action generally may not be brought more than 6 years after the act or omission, regardless of discovery. The period can be tolled for any time the provider knew of the act, error, or omission and failed to disclose it.
How does comparative fault affect a Hawaii malpractice case?
Hawaii uses modified comparative negligence under HRS 663-31. You can recover if your fault is not greater than the defendant's, and your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are found more than 50% at fault, you are barred from recovering.
What is the deadline for a wrongful-death malpractice claim in Hawaii?
A wrongful-death claim under HRS 663-3 generally must be brought within 2 years, typically running from the date of death. The exact deadline can depend on the facts, so confirm it with a licensed Hawaii attorney.
How much is a Hawaii medical malpractice case worth?
There is no formula and no one can promise a result. Value depends on the specific facts, the evidence, and the economic losses involved. Hawaii caps pain-and-suffering damages at $375,000 but does not cap economic damages, and every case is different, so outcomes are never guaranteed.
Updates
Corrected the expert-requirement section: Hawaii does require a certificate of consultation under HRS 671-12.5 with the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel inquiry, and added when a claimant may proceed to court and how the inquiry tolls the limitations period under HRS 671-16 and 671-18.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Removed a fabricated 'undisclosed foreign object' tolling exception to Hawaii's six-year medical malpractice statute of repose; the mirrored statute (HRS 657-7.3) has only one tolling ground, a provider's knowing failure to disclose the act, error, or omission.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 671: MEDICAL TORTS
§ 671-12Review by panel required; notice; presentation of inquiry; request for a more definite statement of the inquiryIn force
(a) Any person or the person's representative having concerns regarding the existence of a medical tort shall submit an inquiry to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel before a suit based on the circumstances of the inquiry may be commenced in any court of this State. Inquiries shall be submitted to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel in writing and shall include the facts upon which the inquiry is based and the names of all parties against whom the inquiry is or may be made who are then known to the person or the person's representative. (b) Within five business days after receipt of an inquiry the panel shall give notice of the inquiry and the statement of the inquiry, by certified mail, to all health care providers and others who are or may be parties to the inquiry and shall furnish copies of written inquiries to those persons.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Yamane v. Pohlson (Hawaii Supreme Court 2006, 111 Haw. 74)“…ffs filed a medical tort claim before the MCCP, pursuant to HRS § 671-12, against twelve respondents as indicate…”
- Garcia v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Hawaii Supreme Court 1999, 90 Haw. 425)“…itted to the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel (MCCP) under HRS § 671-12 (1993) prior to the filing of the compl…”
- Tobosa v. Owens (Hawaii Supreme Court 1987, 69 Haw. 305)“…sed [thereon] may be commenced in any court of this State.” HRS § 671-12. 3 Furthermore, the plaint…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 671-12.5Certificate of consultationIn force
(a) Any inquiry filed with the medical inquiry and conciliation panel under this chapter shall be accompanied by a certificate that declares one of the following: (1) That the party initiating the inquiry or the party's attorney has consulted with at least one physician who is licensed to practice in this State or any other state, and who is knowledgeable or experienced in the same medical specialty as the health care professional against whom the inquiry is made, and that the party or the party's attorney has concluded on the basis of the consultation that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing the inquiry. If the party initiating the inquiry or the party's attorney is not able to consult with a physician in the same medical specialty as the health care professional against whom the inquiry is made, that party or the party's attorney may consult with a physician who is licensed in this State or in any other state who is knowledgeable and experienced in a medical specialty that is as closely related as practicable to the medical specialty of the health care professional against whom the inquiry is made.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Campos v. Marrhey Care Home, LLC (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2012, 128 Haw. 405)“…nded HRS Chapter 671 by-adding a new provision, codified as HRS § 671-12.5 (Supp.2011), which generally requires t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 671-15Panel terminationIn force
The director of commerce and consumer affairs or the panel shall notify all affected parties upon termination of panel proceedings. At the discretion of the director or the panel, a notice of termination may state whether any party or parties to the matter failed to meet the requirements of this part or meaningfully participate in panel proceedings. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; am L 1978, c 60, §2; am L 1983, c 223, §6; am L 1984, c 168, §18; am L 1985, c 197, §23; am L 1992, c 55, §5; am L 2009, c 11, §70; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tobosa v. Owens (Hawaii Supreme Court 1987, 69 Haw. 305)“…m is otherwise disposed of it shall be disbanded.” HRS § 671-15 directs the panel to file a written adv…”
- Estate of Frey v. Mastroianni. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2020, 463 P.3d 1197)“…IFIC REPORTER *** (1993) (hearings are to be “informal”); HRS § 671-15 (1993) (MCCP decisions must be rendere…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 671-16Subsequent litigation; excluded evidenceIn force
[(a)] The party initiating the inquiry may institute litigation based upon the circumstances of the inquiry in an appropriate court only after the medical inquiry and conciliation panel proceedings were terminated pursuant to section 671-15; a party has participated in alternative dispute resolution pursuant to section 671-16.6; or the twelve-month period under section 671-18 has expired. [(b)] No statement made in the course of the proceedings of the medical inquiry and conciliation panel shall be admissible in evidence either as an admission, to impeach the credibility of a witness, or for any other purpose in any trial of the action; provided that the statements may be admissible for the purpose of section 671-19.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Troyer v. Adams (Hawaii Supreme Court 2003, 102 Haw. 399)“…defendants." Dr. Adams also contended that Troyer violated HRS § 671-16 (1993) by submitting the MCCP decision…”
- Craft v. Peebles (Hawaii Supreme Court 1995, 78 Haw. 287)“…in the present case in the Third Circuit Court pursuant to HRS § 671-16. In September 1991, during a bio…”
- Yamane v. Pohlson (Hawaii Supreme Court 2006, 111 Haw. 74)“…their rejection of the MCCP’s advisory opinion pursuant to HRS § 671-16. 3. The Cii cuit Court Proceedin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 671-16.6Submission of inquiry to an alternative dispute resolution providerIn force
(a) Any inquiry initially filed with the medical inquiry and conciliation panel may be subsequently submitted to an alternative dispute resolution provider upon the written agreement of all of the parties and with the written approval of the director of commerce and consumer affairs. The director shall approve the alternative dispute resolution provider and the alternative dispute resolution procedures. All filing fees, less a processing fee of $50, shall be refunded to the appropriate parties if the panel was not constituted or had not taken any action related to the inquiry prior to the submission of the inquiry to an alternative dispute resolution provider. If the panel was constituted or took any action prior to the submission of the inquiry to an alternative dispute resolution provider, the remaining balance of any filing fees shall be refunded to the appropriate parties, less a processing fee of $50 and a pro-rata amount to be determined by the director. (b) The parties shall comply with the procedures established by the alternative dispute resolution provider and approved by the director.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Campos v. Marrhey Care Home, LLC (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2012, 128 Haw. 405)“…an approved alternative dispute resolution provider. See HRS §§ 671-16.6 and 671-18 (Supp.2011). . In 2012…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 671-18Statute of limitations tolledIn force
The filing of the inquiry with the medical inquiry and conciliation panel or with an approved or agreed upon alternative dispute resolution provider shall toll any applicable statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations shall remain tolled until sixty days after the termination of the panel or the notification of completion from the approved or agreed upon alternative dispute resolution provider is mailed or delivered to the parties. If panel proceedings are not completed within twelve months, or the alternative dispute resolution process is not completed within twelve months, the statute of limitations shall resume running and the party filing the inquiry may commence a suit based on the circumstances related to the inquiry in any appropriate court of this State. The panel or the approved or agreed upon alternative dispute resolution provider shall notify all parties in writing of this provision. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; am L 1980, c 88, §2; am L 2003, c 211, §4; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lee v. Hawaii Pacific Health (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2009, 121 Haw. 235)“…Lee argues that, notwithstanding the provisions of HRS § 671-18, 7 she had a good faith be…”
- Salas v. EMP Medical Group, Ltd. (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2023, 152 Haw. 185)“…to submit an inquiry to the MICP sufficient to trigger the HRS § 671-18 (2016) tolling provision4 with respect…”
- Yamane v. Pohlson (Hawaii Supreme Court 2006, 111 Haw. 74)“…e, at 1475 (14th ed.1998). 5 . HRS § 671-18 provides that: The filing of t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 657: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
§ 657-7.3Medical torts; limitation of actions; timeIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
[(a)] No action for injury or death against a chiropractor, clinical laboratory technologist or technician, dentist, naturopathic physician, nurse, nursing home administrator, dispensing optician, optometrist, osteopath, physician or surgeon, physical therapist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian duly licensed or registered under the laws of the State, or a licensed hospital as the employer of any such person, based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, or for rendering professional services without consent, or for error or omission in such person's practice, shall be brought more than two years after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, but in any event not more than six years after the date of the alleged act or omission causing the injury or death. This six-year time limitation shall be tolled for any period during which the person has failed to disclose any act, error, or omission upon which the action is based and which is known to the person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Yamaguchi v. Queen's Medical Center (Hawaii Supreme Court 1982, 65 Haw. 84)“…tations applicable to medical tort proceedings contained in HRS § 657-7.3 (1976). From what we have ascertained t…”
- Hays v. City and County of Honolulu (Hawaii Supreme Court 1996, 81 Haw. 391)“…personal property). In 1973, the legislature enacted HRS § 657-7.3, 3 providing a specific st…”
- Jacoby v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1981, 1 Haw. App. 519)“…judgment, alleging that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by HRS § 657-7.3. 1 The court granted the m…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 663: TORT ACTIONS
§ 663-8.7Limitation on pain and sufferingIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
Damages recoverable for pain and suffering as defined in section 663-8.5 shall be limited to a maximum award of $375,000; provided that this limitation shall not apply to tort actions enumerated in section 663-10.9(2). [L Sp 1986, c 2, §20; am L 1989, c 300, §2; am L 1991, c 62, §1; am L 1993, c 238, §1; am L 1995, c 130, §1]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2011
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ray v. KAPIOLANI MEDICAL SPECIALISTS (Hawaii Supreme Court 2011, 125 Haw. 253)“…g damages from $2 million to $375,000 “in accordance with” HRS § 663-8.7 (1993). The court denied KM…”
- Castaneda Ex Rel. Estate of Castaneda v. United States (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2008, 546 F.3d 682)“…million, Ind.Code § 34 — 18—14—3(a); see also Haw.Rev.Stat. § 663-8.7 ($375,000); Fla. Stat. § 766.118 (2) (…”
- Castaneda v. Henneford (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2008)“…(b), to $1.25 million, Ind. Code § 34-18-14- 3(a); see also Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-8.7 ($375,000); Fla. Stat. § 766.118(2) ($5…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Motorcycle Accident Laws in Hawaii (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Hawaii Punitive Damages Laws: Guieb Standard, Caps and Rules
§ 663-31Contributory negligence no bar; comparative negligence; findings of fact and special verdictsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
(a) Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person or in the case of more than one person, the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made. (b) In any action to which subsection (a) of this section applies, the court, in a nonjury trial, shall make findings of fact or, in a jury trial, the jury shall return a special verdict which shall state: (1) The amount of the damages which would have been recoverable if there had been no contributory negligence; and (2) The degree of negligence of each party, expressed as a percentage.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 48 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kealoha v. County of Hawaii (Hawaii Supreme Court 1993, 74 Haw. 308)“…ages. Judgment was entered in favor of Kealoha, pursuant to HRS § 663-31, in the amount of $21,250. Having preva…”
- Dorrance v. Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1999, 90 Haw. 143)“…d Dorrance’s negligence to be larger than Lee’s negligence, HRS § 663-31 (governing contributory negligence),…”
- Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1987, 69 Haw. 192)“…See 21 A.L.R.3d 469 (1968). Under HRS § 663-31, contributory negligence is no longer a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Hawaii Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP, and Your Claim, Hawaii Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability
§ 663-3Death by wrongful actIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person, the deceased's legal representative, or any of the persons enumerated in subsection (b), may maintain an action against the person causing the death or against the person responsible for the death. The action shall be maintained on behalf of the persons enumerated in subsection (b), except that the legal representative may recover on behalf of the estate the reasonable expenses of the deceased's last illness and burial.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 56 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Masaki v. General Motors Corp. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1989, 71 Haw. 1)“…oreover, we note that in wrongful death actions pursuant to HRS § 663-3, no arbitrary age limit is placed upon…”
- Bertelmann v. Taas Associates (Hawaii Supreme Court 1987, 69 Haw. 95)“…independent cause of action for wrongful death pursuant to HRS § 663-3 (1985). 4 This point, howe…”
- Hun v. Center Properties (Hawaii Supreme Court 1981, 63 Haw. 273)“…Yamasaki where the two-year limitations period set forth in HRS § 663-3 bars appellants’ claim. This Cou…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Hawaii (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Hawaii Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines & Who Can Sue
§ 663-10.9Abolition of joint and several liability; exceptionsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Joint and several liability for joint tortfeasors as defined in section 663-11 is abolished except in the following circumstances: (1) For the recovery of economic damages against joint tortfeasors in actions involving injury or death to persons; (2) For the recovery of economic and noneconomic damages against joint tortfeasors in actions involving: (A) Intentional torts; (B) Torts relating to environmental pollution; (C) Toxic and asbestos-related torts; (D) Torts relating to aircraft accidents; (E) Strict and products liability torts; or (F) Torts relating to motor vehicle accidents except as provided in paragraph (4); (3) For the recovery of noneconomic damages in actions, other than those enumerated in paragraph (2), involving injury or death to persons against those tortfeasors whose individual degree of negligence is found to be twenty-five per cent or more under section 663-31.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Troyer v. Adams (Hawaii Supreme Court 2003, 102 Haw. 399)“…11 is abolished except in certain circumstances defined in HRS § 663-10.9 (Supp.2002). With respect to the presen…”
- Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Department of Education (Hawaii Supreme Court 2002, 100 Haw. 34)“…asmuch as Norton and the DOE are not “joint tortfeasors[,]” HRS § 663-10.9 (Supp.2001), which generally repealed j…”
- Kaho'ohanohano ex rel. Morales-Kaho'ohanohano v. Department of Human Services (Hawaii Supreme Court 2008, 117 Haw. 262)“…in this case but before judgment was issued), which amended HRS § 663-10.9 (2006) to eliminate joint and several l…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 663-8.5Noneconomic damages; definedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Noneconomic damages which are recoverable in tort actions include damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and all other nonpecuniary losses or claims. (b) Pain and suffering is one type of noneconomic damage and means the actual physical pain and suffering that is the proximate result of a physical injury sustained by a person. [L Sp 1986, c 2, §19]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Castro v. Melchor. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2018, 142 Haw. 1)“…nic damages are “indisputably” recoverable in Hawai#i, as “HRS § 663-8.5(a) (Supp. 1992)7 provides that nonecon…”
- Ozaki v. Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1998, 87 Haw. 273)“…489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994), the supreme court, in construing HRS § 663-8.5, stated “that, indisputably, hedonic da…”
- Montalvo v. Lapez (Hawaii Supreme Court 1994, 77 Haw. 282)“…first that, indisputably, hedonic damages are recoverable. HRS § 663-8.5(a) (Supp.1992) provides that "[n]onecon…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 657-7.3, Medical torts; limitation of actions; time (2-year discovery rule and 6-year repose)(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 663-8.7, Limitation on pain and suffering ($375,000 cap)(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 671-12, Review by panel required (Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel pre-suit requirement)(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 663-31, Contributory negligence no bar; comparative negligence(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 663-3, Death by wrongful act(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 671-12.5, Certificate of consultation (expert-consultation certificate required with the panel inquiry)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 671-16, Subsequent litigation; excluded evidence (when suit may be filed after the panel process)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 671-18, Statute of limitations tolled (filing the panel inquiry tolls the limitations period)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.