Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 327
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327-51 (2026)

]  Exemption from strict liability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[PART III.  GENERAL PROVISIONS]

 

Revision Note

 

  This part was renumbered from part IV.

 

     [§327-51]  Exemption from strict liability.  No physician, surgeon, hospital, blood bank, tissue bank, or other person or entity who donates, obtains, prepares, transplants, injects, transfuses, or otherwise transfers, or who assists or participates in obtaining, preparing, transplanting, injecting, transfusing, or otherwise transferring any tissue, organ, blood or component thereof, from one or more persons, living or dead, to another person, shall be liable as a result of any such activity, save and except that each such person or entity shall remain liable for the person's or its own negligence or wilful misconduct. [L 1971, c 102, §1; gen ch 1985]

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 55 (1992).

 

Case Notes

 

  Blood shield law precluded strict liability but not negligence claims of hemophiliac exposed to AIDS virus through injections of blood component, although actual tortfeasor was not identified, under market-share theory of liability.  72 H. 416, 823 P.2d 717 (1991); 971 F.2d 375 (1992).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1991–2003 · leading case: Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 823 P.2d 717 (Haw. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 823 P.2d 717 (Haw. 1991). · cites it 20× “Does Hawaii's Blood Shield Law, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327-51 , preclude Smith from bringing a strict liability claim? 2.”
Cryolife, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 191, 193 ); Hawaii ( Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327-51 (1985)) (Smith v.”
Doe v. Cutter Biological, a Div. of Miles, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 909 (D. Idaho 1994). · cites it 2× “See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 327-51 (1985). Despite such language, however, in Smith v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.