Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 657

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13

  Infancy, insanity, imprisonment

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

     §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
Cited in 56 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Kahale v. City and County of Honolulu
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kahale v. City and County of Honolulu (2004) haw · 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. Center Properties (1981) haw · 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 (1999) haw · 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 (1987) haw · 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 Mutual Automobile Insurance (1988) haw · 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. (1992) hid · 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 (1991) haw · 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. (1994) haw · 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 Insurance Co. of Hawaii v. a & B Properties, Inc. (2012) haw · 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 Services, Inc. (2013) haw · 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 and County of Honolulu (1973) haw · 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 (1977) haw · cites it 16× “At the time of the accident, HRS § 657-13 provided: Infancy, insanity, imprisonment.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13(1) — 2 cases
Kahale v. City and County of Honolulu (2004) haw “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…”
Lerette v. City and County of Hawaii (2020) hid
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13(2) — 1 case
Buck v. Miles (1999) haw “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
Conklin v. Espinda (2025) hid
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.