Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 520-2 (2026)

  Definitions

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

     §520-2  Definitions.  As used in this chapter:

     "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.

     "House guest" means any person specifically invited by the owner or a member of the owner's household to visit at the owner's home whether for dinner, or to a party, for conversation or any other similar purposes including for recreation, and includes playmates of the owner's minor children.

     "Land" means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to realty, other than lands owned by the government.

     "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises.

     "Recreational purpose" includes but is not limited to any of the following, or any combination thereof:  hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

     "Recreational user" means any person who is on or about the premises that the owner of land either directly or indirectly invites or permits, without charge, entry onto the property for recreational purposes. [L 1969, c 186, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1997, c 272, §1]

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  The Hawai`i Recreational Use Statute:  A Practical Guide to Landowner Liability.  22 UH L. Rev. 237 (2000).

 

Case Notes

 

  Plaintiff who suffered personal injuries while plaintiff was using a military recreational facility was not "charged" an "admission price or fee ... in return for ... permission to enter or go upon the [government's] land".  181 F.3d 1064 (1999).

  Where plaintiff who was engaged in activity of boating argued that plaintiff was not engaging in a recreational activity while taking the sailing course, although plaintiff may have had professional as well as personal reasons for taking the course, plaintiff's alleged professional motivation did not convert plaintiff into a nonrecreational user; plaintiff's subjective intent was, in the situation, immaterial.  181 F.3d 1064 (1999).

  No requirement that landowner open property to every person in the public in order to obtain protection under statute; defendant's duty to recreational user of property arose where defendant undertook and posted lifeguards at beach.  691 F. Supp. 256 (1988).

  Where plaintiff alleged that the United States navy received a financial benefit from the Pearl Harbor bike path when its members commuted by bicycle on the bike path, reducing the need for parking spaces at Pearl Harbor naval station, and that the city of Honolulu's bicycle registration fee constituted a "charge" under Hawaii recreational use statute (HRUS), the United States did not charge plaintiff to enter the bike path and the "charge" exception to HRUS was not applicable.  180 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (2001).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Thompson v. Kyo-Ya Co., Ltd., 146 P.3d 1049 (Haw. 2006).
Thompson v. Kyo-Ya Co., Ltd., 146 P.3d 1049 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 60× “" "Recreational purpose," in turn, is defined as including "but not limited to any of the following[:] .”
Frances Howard v. United States of Am. Us Sailing Ass'n, Inc. Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corp. Guy S. Fleming, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 520-2, 520-4, 520-5(2). Our holding is consistent with those cases that have interpreted the HRUS.”
Lansdell v. Cnty. of Kauai, 130 P.3d 1054 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 6× “6 In response, Plaintiffs contend that because the County did not own the Queen’s Bath area, the County could not be deemed a “landowner” within the language of HRS § 520-2 (Supp.2005). The relevant definitions of HRS § 520-2 are as follows: *195 “Charge” means the admission…”
Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 6 P.3d 349 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 3× “HRS § 520-2 (brackets in original) (1993 & Supp.”
Atahan v. Muramoto, 984 P.2d 104 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 11× “Although our holding is based on the unambiguous language of HRS § 520-4(a)(2), we note that although HRS § 520-2 defines land as including both land and water, it states that its purpose “is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for…”
Viess v. Sea Enter. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 226 (D. Haw. 1986). · cites it 4× ““Charge” is defined in § 520-2 as “the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to go upon the land.”
Brown v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Haw. 2001). · cites it 8× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 520-2. A “recreational user” is “any person who is on or about the premises that the owner of the land either directly or indirectly invites or permits, without charge, entry onto the property for recreational purposes.”
Geremia v. State, 573 P.2d 107 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 2× “…to give a warning of dangerous conditions where entry is for recreational purposes, is not available to the State. HRS § 520-2(1).”
Palmer v. United States, 742 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Haw. 1990). · cites it 4× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 520-2(3). 4. The Hawaii Recreational Use Statute applies where the visitor combines a recreational purpose with a non-recreational purpose.”
Lucero v. Richardson & Richardson, Inc., 2002 NMCA 013 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). “”) (emphasis added), with Haw. Rev.Stat. § 520-2 (1993) (“ ‘Land’ means land, roads, water, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to realty, other than lands owned by the government.”
Collard v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 256 (D. Haw. 1988). · cites it 2× “Although in defining “recreational purpose” the statute does not specifically mention “playing on logs”, the statute does include swimming and further explicitly states that “recreational purpose .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 520-2(1) — 3 cases
Geremia v. State, 573 P.2d 107 (Haw. 1977). “…to give a warning of dangerous conditions where entry is for recreational purposes, is not available to the State. HRS § 520-2(1).”
Viess v. Sea Enter. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 226 (D. Haw. 1986). ““Charge” is defined in § 520-2 as “the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to go upon the land.”
Collard v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 256 (D. Haw. 1988). “Although in defining “recreational purpose” the statute does not specifically mention “playing on logs”, the statute does include swimming and further explicitly states that “recreational purpose .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 520-2(3) — 4 cases
Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 6 P.3d 349 (Haw. 2000). “HRS § 520-2 (brackets in original) (1993 & Supp.”
Frances Howard v. United States of Am. Us Sailing Ass'n, Inc. Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corp. Guy S. Fleming, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). “” Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 520-2, 520-4, 520-5(2). Our holding is consistent with those cases that have interpreted the HRUS.”
Viess v. Sea Enter. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 226 (D. Haw. 1986). ““Charge” is defined in § 520-2 as “the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to go upon the land.”
Palmer v. United States, 742 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Haw. 1990). “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 520-2(3). 4. The Hawaii Recreational Use Statute applies where the visitor combines a recreational purpose with a non-recreational purpose.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 520-2(4) — 2 cases
Frances Howard v. United States of Am. Us Sailing Ass'n, Inc. Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corp. Guy S. Fleming, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). “” Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 520-2, 520-4, 520-5(2). Our holding is consistent with those cases that have interpreted the HRUS.”
Viess v. Sea Enter. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 226 (D. Haw. 1986). ““Charge” is defined in § 520-2 as “the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to go upon the land.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 520-2(5) — 1 case
Palmer v. United States, 742 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Haw. 1990). “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 520-2(3). 4. The Hawaii Recreational Use Statute applies where the visitor combines a recreational purpose with a non-recreational purpose.”
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.