Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-72 (2026)

Liability for injuries or damages; notice

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§46-72 Liability for injuries or damages; notice. Before the county shall be liable for damages to any person for injuries to person or property received upon any of the streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, or other public places of the county, or on account of any negligence of any official or employee of the county, the person injured, or the owner or person entitled to the possession, occupation, or use of the property injured, or someone on the person's behalf, within two years after the injuries accrued shall give the individual identified in the respective county's charter, or if none is specified, the chairperson of the council of the county or the clerk of the county in which the injuries occurred, notice in writing of the injuries and the specific damages resulting, stating fully when, where, and how the injuries or damage occurred, the extent of the injuries or damages, and the amount claimed. [L 1943, c 181, §1; RL 1945, §6013; RL 1955, §138-21; HRS §46-72; am L 1998, c 124, §1; am L 2007, c 152, §8]

Cross References

Use, repair, and maintenance of public roads in ownership dispute, see §46-15.9.

Law Journals and Reviews

The Requirement for Notice of Claim Against the City and County of Honolulu: Does it Apply to a Claim for Contribution Under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act? 3 HBJ, May 1965, at 4.

Case Notes

Presentation of claim against county within six month limit was not condition precedent to maintaining third party action against county for contribution under Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. 283 F. Supp. 854.

This is a statute of limitations and is to be narrowly construed. 283 F. Supp. 854.

Plaintiff's [chapters] 368 and 378 state law claims against the county were time-barred under this section, where plaintiff never provided the county written notice of plaintiff's claim. 504 F. Supp. 2d 969.

Sufficiency of notice of claim discussed. 54 H. 210, 505 P.2d 1182.

Notice of claim requirement is inconsistent with §662-4 and is invalid. 55 H. 216, 517 P.2d 51; 56 H. 135, 531 P.2d 648.

Because the city is neither the sovereign nor the surrogate or alter ego of the sovereign, it is not entitled to sovereign immunity; thus, it is subject to the State's tort laws in the same manner as any private tortfeasor; as §657-13 governs classes of "personal" tort actions, such as "damage to persons or property", the infancy tolling provision of §657-13(1) applies directly to personal injury actions against the city; child was thus able to bring action, but as §657-13(1) did not provide for tolling of parents' derivative actions and they did not timely comply with this section, their individual claims were barred. 104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233.

Counties do not fall within the ambit of the State Tort Liability Act, chapter 662; this section is the statute of limitations applicable to actions against the counties. 104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233.

The limitation period set forth in this section is not tolled pending the appointment of a personal representative. 115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247.

The statute of limitations applicable to the estate's claims arising out of decedent's injuries and the plaintiff's own derivative wrongful death damages was this section; this section applies to claims against counties arising from fatal injuries. 115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247.

Where this section (2006) created a class of tort claimants, injured by the conduct of a county, who were subject to a six-month statute of limitations period for filing their complaint, and victims of injuries caused by the State under §662-4 had a two-year limitation period, and there was no rational basis to support such disparate treatment, this section (2006) was unconstitutional under article I, §5 of the Hawaii constitution. 115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247.

Statutory notice prerequisite was satisfied, where upon decedent's death, plaintiffs sent a letter to the county chief of police and corporation counsel requesting that all evidence related to the accident be preserved, such as the decedent's bicycle that was struck by a police vehicle. Despite the county's argument that the letter was insufficient notice of an actual claim, although not technically filed with the county clerk, it provided notice to the appropriate county officials. Thus, the county suffered no prejudice in its ability to investigate or prepare for litigation due to any faults in the written notice. 379 F. Supp. 3d 1086 (2019).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 210× “[2] In response, the City argues that the Plaintiffs actually brought their claim against the City pursuant to HRS § 662-4 (1993), [3] rather than HRS *235 § 657-7, and that HRS § 657-13 does not apply to actions commenced under HRS § 662-4, such that the statute of limitations…”

Silva v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 165 P.3d 247 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 73× “1997) 1 is the controlling statute of limitations in wrongful death actions against the County, not HRS § 46-72 (Supp.1998);- 2 (2) in any case, the “Plaintiffs substantially complied with the provisions of HRS § 46-72”; (3) the notice period “should have been tolled until .”

Oakley v. State, 505 P.2d 1182 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 94× “, negligently designed, maintained and inspected the county roadways, resulting in serious injuries to appellant, and sought damages therefor. The appellee and cross-appellant in their answers to the complaint raised, inter alia, the following defense: that appellant's notice of…”

Salavea v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 517 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 48× “On October 17, 1972, summary judgment was sought by appellee on the basis that appellants failed to comply with Section 12-106 of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu, [1] and with HRS § 46-72. Both provisions [2] provide *53 that before the City and County shall be…”

Kaulia v. Cnty. of Maui, Dept. of Pub. Works, 504 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Haw. 2007). · cites it 24× “d be dismissed because Goode and Takamine never actively discriminated against Plaintiff and that, even if they had, they are entitled to qualified immunity; that Plaintiffs § 1981 claim for alleged negative job references is untimely; and that Plaintiffs Hawaii state law claims…”

Surnow v. Buddemeyer, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1086 (D. Haw. 2019). · cites it 21× “Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 46-72 and Hawaii County Charter Section 13-18 The Hawaii Revised Statutes and the Hawaii County Charter require written notice to be provided to the County before an individual may recover for any personal injuries.”

Orso v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 534 P.2d 489 (Haw. 1975). · cites it 4× “That HRS § 46-72 and Section 12-106 of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu which are notice of claim requirements, operate in reality as statutes of limitations for the tort liability of the City and County of Honolulu; *247 b.”

Lalau v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “3d 247 (2007) (discussing the effect of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 46-72 on the limitation period for tort claims against the City and concluding that the claims were governed by Haw.”

Sherry Ex Rel. Sherry v. Asing, 531 P.2d 648 (Haw. 1975). · cites it 2× “2d 51 (1973), which was decided by this court after the briefings in this case had been completed, the majority of this court held that HRS § 46-72, and section 12-111 of the charter of the City and County of Honolulu were superseded by HRS § 662-4, and that the two-year statute…”

Fatai v. City & Cnty. Honolulu (D. Haw. 2022). · cites it 58× “But Fatai nonetheless argues that his initial complaint in this case, which included only federal law claims against the County (state law claims were later added by amendment), satisfies his Section 46-72 notice obligations. The Court disagrees with Fatai.”

Coles v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu., 517 P.3d 750 (Haw. 2022). · cites it 36× “It argued the suits were barred because they did not comply with HRS § 46-72’s (2012) two-year notice requirement.”

Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Hawaii (D. Haw. 2019). · cites it 34× “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-72 (“or on account of any negligence…”) (emphasis added); see also Pancakes of Haw.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.