Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 662
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-15 (2026)

  Exceptions

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

     §662-15  Exceptions.  This chapter shall not apply to:

     (1)  Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the State, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation is valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state officer or employee, whether or not the discretion involved has been abused;

     (2)  Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax, or the detention of any goods or merchandise by law enforcement officers;

     (3)  Any claim for which a remedy is provided elsewhere in the laws of the State;

     (4)  Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;

     (5)  Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the Hawaii National Guard and Hawaii state defense force during time of war, or during the times the Hawaii National Guard is engaged in federal service pursuant to section 316, 502, 503, 504, 505, or 709 of title 32 of the United States Code;

     (6)  Any claim arising in a foreign country; or

     (7)  Any claim arising out of the acts or omissions of any boating enforcement officer. [L 1957, c 312, pt of §1; Supp, §245A-15; HRS §662-15; am L 1972, c 164, §2(e); am L 1979, c 195, §2; am L 1986, c 173, §1; am L 1987, c 192, §1; am L 1988, c 135, §1; am L 1991, c 272, §15; am L 1998, c 213, §2; am L 1999, c 115, §§4, 11; am L 2004, c 10, §10]

 

Cross References

 

  Claim against the ferry system, see §§268-11 to 268-15.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Rogers v. State:  The Limits of State Tort Liability.  8 HBJ, no. 3, at 89 (1971).

  A Self-Executing Article XI, Section 9--The Door For a Bivens Action for Environmental Rights?  34 UH L. Rev. 187 (2012).

 

Case Notes

 

  Section was not applied retroactively.  832 F.2d 1116 (1987).

  Where plaintiff was arrested seven years after issuance of "retake warrant" for parole violation, neither the State nor the parole office could be vicariously liable for false imprisonment or false arrest because the State Tort Liability Act does not waive immunity for these claims.  Additionally, plaintiff could not overcome qualified immunity of parole officer because she was unable to show that parole officer was motivated by malice towards her.  37 F.4th 527 (2022).

  Discretionary function exception discussed.  51 H. 150, 454 P.2d 112 (1969).

  Acts done on operational level are not within discretionary function exception.  51 H. 293, 459 P.2d 378 (1969); 52 H. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970).

  Distinction between governmental activity and private activity is not valid basis for determining liability.  51 H. 293, 459 P.2d 378 (1969).

  Discretionary function exception discussed re highway design.  57 H. 656, 562 P.2d 436 (1977).

  Claim for negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against Hawaii civil rights commission not barred under paragraph (1), as acts of investigating complaint, instituting suit based on finding of reasonable cause, and sending demand letter were part of routine operations of commission and did not involve broad policy considerations encompassed within the discretionary function exception.  88 H. 85, 962 P.2d 344 (1998).

  The discretionary function exception in paragraph (1) is limited to situations in which a government agent is engaged in the effectuation of "broad public policy"; the investigation of a complaint by the Hawaii civil rights commission, in and of itself, does not involve such considerations; thus, a counterclaim for negligence in the performance of an investigation is not barred by sovereign immunity.  88 H. 85, 962 P.2d 344 (1998).

  Decision not to improve guardrail, at time of highway resurfacing project, constituted an operational level decision that did not fall within the discretionary function exception of paragraph (1).  91 H. 60, 979 P.2d 1086 (1999).

  To the extent that the plaintiffs predicated their negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims upon the department of education's (DOE) negligent retention and supervision of teacher, paragraph (4) did not insulate the DOE from liability; given that plaintiffs had alleged that the DOE reasonably should have anticipated that teacher would molest the girl students, their negligent retention and supervision claims did not "arise out" of teacher's acts of molestation.  100 H. 34, 58 P.3d 545 (2002).

  Where a plaintiff's negligence claim against the State seeks to hold the State vicariously liable for a state employee's assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc. under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the State is, pursuant to paragraph (4), immune from the plaintiff's claims.  100 H. 34, 58 P.3d 545 (2002).

  As §40-35 applied to plaintiff's ocean recreation management area permit fee dispute, all of plaintiff's tort claims were barred under paragraph (3), which unambiguously provides that chapter 662 is inapplicable to "any claim for which a remedy is provided elsewhere in the laws of the State"; trial court thus did not err in determining that paragraph (3) barred all of plaintiff's tort claims.  113 H. 184, 150 P.3d 833 (2006).

  Assuming defendants' claims for "unreasonable failure to consent" and "negligent claims handling" fell within the interference with contract rights exception of paragraph (4),  it could not be said that the State improperly interfered with the alleged settlement agreement because, pursuant to §386-8, the State was a necessary party to such agreement.  114 H. 202, 159 P.3d 814 (2007).

  Where Hawaii employer-union health benefits trust fund trustees' decision to adopt a two-tier rate structure for health benefit plans was not a routine, everyday matter, but involved the evaluation of broad policy factors, it fell within the discretionary function exception of paragraph (1).  115 H. 126, 165 P.3d 1027 (2007).

  In negligence action brought against the State and department of transportation when rockfall struck plaintiffs' vehicle, circuit court misapprehended the relevant legal standard for causation because the court made no finding as to whether the State's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiffs' injuries and instead considered whether performance of the State's duty would have completely prevented injury to the plaintiffs.  140 H. 36, 398 P.3d 625 (2017).

  Where plaintiffs brought action against the State and department of transportation when rockfall struck plaintiffs' vehicle, the State's breach of its duty of care due to its failure to have a routine, coordinated system of rockfall mitigation at the operational level did not fall within the exception for waiver of immunity for tort liability under the State Tort Liability Act when claims were based on the performance or failure to perform a discretionary function on the part of a state officer or employee.  140 H. 36, 398 P.3d 625 (2017).

  State has not waived its immunity in defamation actions.  1 H. App. 517, 620 P.2d 771 (1980).

  Cited:  133 H. 453, 331 P.3d 431 (2014).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dep't of Educ., 58 P.3d 545 (Haw. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dep't of Educ., 58 P.3d 545 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 48× “However, several “exceptions” to the general waiver of immunity from tort claims are set forth in HRS § 662-15 (1993 & Supp. 2001). Consequently, we have held that, “if a private party would be liable under the circumstances[, then] the State would also be liable, except for…”
Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 150 P.3d 833 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 22× “HRS § 662-15 lists seven enumerated exceptions to the State of Hawaii's express waiver of sovereign immunity for the torts of its employees.”
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 10× “]" Notwithstanding this general waiver of immunity, HRS § 662-15 (1993) provides, in relevant part, that: This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon .”
O'Grady v. State., 398 P.3d 625 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 8× “The exceptions listed in HRS § 662-15 are exceptions to the State’s liability rather than a retention of sovereign immunity over certain claims, and consequently, the exceptions do not operate to withdraw subject-matter jurisdiction from the courts.”
Kaho'ohanohano ex rel. Morales-Kaho'ohanohano v. Dep't of Human Servs., 178 P.3d 538 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 6× “However, several exceptions to the general waiver of immunity from tort claims are set forth in HRS § 662-15 [ (Supp.2007), none of which apply here].”
Alaka'i Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi, 277 P.3d 988 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 6× “9(6); and (5) the DOE was negligent and the STLA, HRS § 662-15 (Supp.2009), allowed Petitioner to bring a negligence claim against the DOE.”
Taylor-Rice v. State, 979 P.2d 1086 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 8× “to improve the guardrail where the accident occurred; 7 (2) even if it was under a duty to improve the guardrail, (a) its conduct was not a legal cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages, and (b) Leigh’s acts were unforeseeable and thus constituted a superseding cause of the…”
Breed Ex Rel. Breed v. Shaner, 562 P.2d 436 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 6× “Is the State of Hawaii exempted from liability as a matter of law for the design of the highway here in question, under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Liability Act, HRS § 662-15(1)? *658 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 29, 1970, plaintiff Magdalena Maria…”
Rodrigues v. State, 472 P.2d 509 (Haw. 1970). · cites it 4× “" [2] HRS § 662-2 states that: "The State hereby waives its immunity for liability for the torts of its employees and shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to…”
Orso v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 534 P.2d 489 (Haw. 1975). · cites it 7× “3 HRS § 662-15(1) reads: § 662-15 Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the State, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon…”
Pickering v. State, 557 P.2d 125 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 4× “The appellants themselves concede that had the State decided not to construct the barrier, as an added precautionary measure, it would have been a discretionary decision impervious to attack under HRS § 662-15(1). See Rogers v. State, 51 Haw.”
Ajirogi v. State, 583 P.2d 980 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 4× “Exceptions from liability so determined are provided in HRS § 662-15. In the view we take of this case we do not reach consideration of these exceptions, upon which the State does not rely.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-15(1) — 19 cases
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007). “]" Notwithstanding this general waiver of immunity, HRS § 662-15 (1993) provides, in relevant part, that: This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon .”
Taylor-Rice v. State, 979 P.2d 1086 (Haw. 1999). “to improve the guardrail where the accident occurred; 7 (2) even if it was under a duty to improve the guardrail, (a) its conduct was not a legal cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages, and (b) Leigh’s acts were unforeseeable and thus constituted a superseding cause of the…”
O'Grady v. State., 398 P.3d 625 (Haw. 2017). “The exceptions listed in HRS § 662-15 are exceptions to the State’s liability rather than a retention of sovereign immunity over certain claims, and consequently, the exceptions do not operate to withdraw subject-matter jurisdiction from the courts.”
Breed Ex Rel. Breed v. Shaner, 562 P.2d 436 (Haw. 1977). “Is the State of Hawaii exempted from liability as a matter of law for the design of the highway here in question, under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Liability Act, HRS § 662-15(1)? *658 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 29, 1970, plaintiff Magdalena Maria…”
Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 150 P.3d 833 (Haw. 2006). “HRS § 662-15 lists seven enumerated exceptions to the State of Hawaii's express waiver of sovereign immunity for the torts of its employees.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-15(3) — 3 cases
Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 150 P.3d 833 (Haw. 2006). “HRS § 662-15 lists seven enumerated exceptions to the State of Hawaii's express waiver of sovereign immunity for the torts of its employees.”
Suzuki v. State, 196 P.3d 290 (Haw. App. 2008).
Enos v. State, 234 P.3d 694 (Haw. App. 2010).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-15(4) — 11 cases
Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dep't of Educ., 58 P.3d 545 (Haw. 2002). “However, several “exceptions” to the general waiver of immunity from tort claims are set forth in HRS § 662-15 (1993 & Supp. 2001). Consequently, we have held that, “if a private party would be liable under the circumstances[, then] the State would also be liable, except for…”
Buscher v. Boning, 159 P.3d 814 (Haw. 2007).
Towse v. State, 647 P.2d 696 (Haw. 1982).
Salavea v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 517 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1973).
Littleton v. State, 708 P.2d 829 (Haw. App. 1985).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-15(6) — 1 case
Griffen v. State, 767 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 2009).
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.