§657-13 Infancy, insanity, imprisonment.
If any person entitled to bring any action specified in this part (excepting
actions against the sheriff, chief of police, or other officers) is, at the
time the cause of action accrued, either:
(1) Within the age of eighteen years;
(2) Insane; or
(3) Imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution
under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than the person's
natural life;
such person shall be at liberty to bring such
actions within the respective times limited in this part, after the disability
is removed or at any time while the disability exists. [CC 1859, §1039; RL
1925, §2648; RL 1935, §3919; RL 1945, §10430; RL 1955, §241-12; am L 1963, c
13, §1 and c 85, §3; HRS §657-13; am L 1972, c 2, §37(1); gen ch 1985; am L
1989, c 211, §10; am L 1990, c 281, §11]
Revision Note
Pursuant to §23G-15, in:
(1) Paragraph (1) "or," deleted; and
(2) Paragraph (2), punctuation deleted.
Law Journals and Reviews
Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common
Law Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 55 (1992).
Case Notes
Hybrid §301 Labor Management Relations Act/fair
representation claim not tolled by this section. 817 F. Supp. 850 (1992).
Deed of minor may be disaffirmed within reasonable time after
majority attained. 30 H. 184 (1927).
Mentally enfeebled person not barred by statute though suit
for cancellation of deed more than six years from execution. 31 H. 817, 901
(1931).
Laches is not imputable to one mentally incapacitated to
execute valid deed. 31 H. 817 (1931).
Amendment reducing period of infancy, during which statute of
limitations is tolled, from twenty to eighteen years had effect of accelerating
the date on which the limitation statute commences to run so that action not
brought within two years after plaintiff had reached eighteen was barred. 58
H. 101, 564 P.2d 1276 (1977).
Section applies to the limitations period provided in
§663-3. 63 H. 273, 626 P.2d 182 (1981).
Not applicable to actions against the State. 72 H. 77, 806
P.2d 957 (1991).
Tolls statute of limitations for tort actions arising out of
motor vehicle accidents during victims' minority. 72 H. 377, 819 P.2d 80
(1991).
Considering the definition of insanity and construing summary
judgment liberally in favor of non-movant, affidavits of doctors that patient
was mentally incompetent to manage patient's legal and business affairs were
sufficient to invoke tolling provisions of this section. 89 H. 244, 971 P.2d
717 (1999).
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 this section governs classes of "personal" tort
actions, such as "damage to persons or property", the infancy tolling
provision of paragraph (1) applies directly to personal injury actions against
the city; child was thus able to bring action, but as paragraph (1) did not
provide for tolling of parents' derivative actions and they did not timely
comply with §46-72, their individual claims were barred. 104 H. 341, 90 P.3d
233 (2004).
Cited: 20 H. 165 (1910); 75 F. Supp. 553, 563 (1948); 198 F.
Supp. 78, 91 (1961).
Notes of Decisions
Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 125× “On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that, inasmuch as they brought suit against the City pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-7 (1993), [1] the circuit court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations governing their claims was not tolled by the provisions of…”
Hun v. Ctr. Props., 626 P.2d 182 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 21× “, chapter 83, of similar design to HRS § 657-13, thereby tolling the limitations period in wrongful death actions for surviving children.”
Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 25× “Plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to HRS § 657-13 because Ms. O’Toole-Buck was insane.”
Crawford for Crawford v. Crawford, 745 P.2d 285 (Haw. 1987).
· cites it 26× “Center Properties , we held that the general infancy tolling provision in HRS § 657-13 [9] was applicable to the wrongful death statute of limitations in HRS § 663-3.”
Zator Ex Rel. Zator v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 752 P.2d 1073 (Haw. 1988).
· cites it 16× “He noted that HRS § 657-13, a provision in *596 the Hawaii chapter on statutes of limitation, tolls the running of the limitation period if at the time a cause of action accrues the person entided to bring the action is insane.”
Char v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 850 (D. Haw. 1992).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiff offers two arguments in support of her position that the DelCostello six month limitations period has been tolled: (1) HRS § 657-13 applies, and (2) federal equitable tolling principles apply.”
Gorospe v. Matsui, 819 P.2d 80 (Haw. 1991).
· cites it 13× “The precise legal question presented in both cases is whether, in a claim for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the statute of limitations provided by Hawaii Revised *379 Statutes (HRS) § 294-36(b) 2 is tolled during minority as provided in HRS § 657-13. 3…”
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 4× “2d 1073 (1988), where we held that the tolling provisions of HRS § 657-13 applied to toll the two year statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 294-36 for bringing a suit for *1056 no-fault benefits.”
First Ins. Co. of Hawaii v. a & B Props., Inc., 271 P.3d 1165 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Nothing in the record indicates that HRS § 657-13, which deals with exceptions to the statute of limitations because of infancy, insanity, or imprisonment, applies to the present case.”
Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 306 P.3d 175 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 8× “This was because HRS § 294-36 was “silent as to whether it is tolled if the person entitled to bring the suit is rendered insane on account of the accident,” but the “general tolling provisions for statutes of limitations set forth in HRS § 657-13 provides for tolling of the 28…”
Salavea v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 517 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 10× “Of course, a child is not excused from filing a notice of claim by virtue of the tolling provision in HRS § 657-13 (Supp. 1972), [4] even assuming that notice of claim requirements are "statutes of limitations" and not "conditions precedent" to suit, since section 657-13 by its…”
Jones v. State, 564 P.2d 1276 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 16× “At the time of the accident, HRS § 657-13 provided: Infancy, insanity, imprisonment.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13(1) — 2 cases
Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).
“On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that, inasmuch as they brought suit against the City pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-7 (1993), [1] the circuit court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations governing their claims was not tolled by the provisions of…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13(2) — 1 case
Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (Haw. 1999).
“Plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to HRS § 657-13 because Ms. O’Toole-Buck was insane.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13(3) — 1 case
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.