Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 386
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-6 (2026)

  Territorial applicability

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

     §386-6  Territorial applicability.  (a)  This chapter shall be applicable to all work injuries sustained by employees within the territorial boundaries of the State.

     (b)  If an employee who has been hired in the State suffers work injury, the employee shall be entitled to compensation under this chapter even though the injury was sustained without the State.  The right to compensation shall exclude all other liability of the employer for damages as provided in section 386-5.  All contracts of hire of employees made within the State shall be deemed to include an agreement to that effect.

     (c)  If an employee who has been hired without the State is injured while engaged in the business of the employee's employer, and is entitled to compensation for the injury under the law of the state or territory where the employee was hired, the employee shall be entitled to enforce against the employee's employer the employee's rights in this State if the employee's rights are such that they can reasonably be determined and dealt with by the director of labor and industrial relations, the appellate board, and the court in this State. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-6; HRS §386-6; am L 2016, c 55, §10]

 

Case Notes

 

  Not exclusive remedy where emotional distress is caused by wilful and wanton conduct of corporate officer.  720 F. Supp. 829 (1989).

  Claimant not entitled to rely on foreign law where in proceedings below, claimant not only failed to rely on foreign law but affirmatively relied on Hawaii law.  54 H. 98, 503 P.2d 434 (1972).

  Employee "hired in the State" construed.  59 H. 551, 584 P.2d 119 (1978).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2011 · leading case: Lawhead v. United Air Lines, 584 P.2d 119 (Haw. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lawhead v. United Air Lines, 584 P.2d 119 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 13× “First, they contend that HRS § 386-6 (1976) failed to confer jurisdiction upon the Board to consider appellee’s claim.”
Kyne v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 914 (D. Haw. 2011). “…standing to enforce § 481B-14 through § 480-2(e), but declined to consider whether § 481B-14 is enforceable through §§ 386-6, 388-10, and 388-11 because “it [was] beyond the scope of the certified question.” 228 P.3d at 308 n. 12. Because the instant issue raises a question…”
Ermocida v. Destination Resorts Hawaii, Inc., 126 P.3d 415 (Haw. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Claimant argues that the Board has no jurisdiction to apply the offset provision to the California award, because under HRS § 386-6 [1993 4 ], Chapter 386 applies only to work injuries sustained within the state.”
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.