§662-4 Statute of limitations. A tort
claim against the State shall be forever barred unless action is begun within
two years after the claim accrues, except in the case of a medical tort claim
when the limitation of action provisions set forth in section 657-7.3 shall
apply. [L 1957, c 312, pt of §1; Supp, §245A-4; HRS §662-4; am L 1976, c 219,
§16]
Case Notes
Plaintiff, a former state employee, alleged slander against
one of the state defendants. Although plaintiff appeared to conclude that the
continuing violation doctrine made plaintiff's claims actionable, the court
found that plaintiff failed to allege that the incidents fell within the
two-year limitations period. 430 F. Supp. 3d 655 (2020).
Claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known
that an actionable wrong has been committed. 63 H. 117, 621 P.2d 957 (1980).
Minority tolling not applicable. 72 H. 77, 806 P.2d 957
(1991).
Plaintiff's lack of knowledge regarding a legal duty, the
breach of which may have caused plaintiff's injury, did not justify application
of "discovery rule"; plaintiff's failure to seek legal advice from an
attorney did not toll statute of limitations. 81 H. 391, 917 P.2d 718 (1996).
Counties do not fall within the ambit of the State Tort
Liability Act; §46-72 is the statute of limitations applicable to actions
against the counties. 104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233 (2004).
Where plaintiffs' claim did not accrue until the quantum of
the medical care they actually received exceeded the medical-rehabilitative
limit set forth in §431:10C-306(b)(2) (1993), and plaintiff apparently exceeded
that limit, this section afforded plaintiffs two years from the accrual of
their claim within which to file their lawsuit; as plaintiffs' claim had
accrued by the time they filed their complaint but not more than two years
prior, the complaint was timely under this section; thus, trial court properly
denied defendant's motion to dismiss. 113 H. 459, 153 P.3d 1144 (2007).
Where §46-72 (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 this section had a two-year limitation period, and there was
no rational basis to support such disparate treatment, §46-72 (2006) was
unconstitutional under article I, §5 of the Hawaii constitution. 115 H. 1, 165
P.3d 247 (2007).
Continuing-tort exception, which tolls running of statute of
limitations under this section, adopted; thus, where an actor continuously
diverts water over which he or she has direct control onto another's land, and
the diversion causes continuous and substantial damage to that person's
property and the actor knows of this damage, such an act may present evidence
of a continuous tort. 88 H. 241 (App.), 965 P.2d 783 (1998).
Notes of Decisions
Kahale v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 158× “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…”
Salavea v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 517 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 60× “We find it unnecessary to consider all points on appeal, because we can dispose of the issue of the validity of the notice requirements on the basis of only one of appellants' contentions.”
Hays v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 917 P.2d 718 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 14× “It further appears from the record that the city also asserted HRS § 662-4 (1993) as a basis for summary judgment.”
Savini v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 153 P.3d 1144 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 33× “On appeal, UH asserts that the Savinis’ claim for relief is barred by HRS § 662-4 inasmuch as more than two years elapsed between the onset of the Savinis’ injuries— which, UH asserts, triggered the “accrual” of them claim—and the Savinis’ initiation of their lawsuit more than…”
Anderson v. State, 965 P.2d 783 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 18× “Anderson contends that the circuit court erred in: (1) granting the State’s June 10, 1997 motion for summary judgment, because a material question of fact existed regarding the application of HRS § 662-4; and (2) denying Anderson’s August 25, 1997 motion for reconsideration.”
Oakley v. State, 505 P.2d 1182 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 28× “[1] *1188 It appears to me that HRS § 662-4 which was enacted subsequent to the enactment of HRS § 46-72 has impliedly repealed this six-month limitation by instituting a two-year statute of limitation for tort claims against the State and its political subdivisions the…”
Okutsu v. State., 528 P.3d 956 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 25× “After briefing was completed we issued an order, pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4),4 inviting supplemental briefing "on the legal issue of whether the executive branch can waive the HRS § 662-4 time bar on the State's waiver of sovereign…”
Waugh v. Univ. of Hawaii, 621 P.2d 957 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 662-4. 3 Section 1 of Chapter 661 provides the circuit courts with jurisdiction to hear: 4 (1) All claims against the State founded upon any statute of the State; or upon any regulation of an executive department; or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the State,…”
Orso v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 534 P.2d 489 (Haw. 1975).
· cites it 8× “That HRS § 662-4, the two-year statute of limitations for tort actions against the State, takes precedence over and hence invalidates the notice of claim requirements in HRS § 46-72 and Section 12-106 of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu and therefore, claims…”
Rodrigues v. State, 472 P.2d 509 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 662-4. II. Because the maintenance of a culvert is not a discretionary function, we must decide whether the trial court was correct in finding that the State, treated as an individual "under like circumstances," was liable under the law governing disposal of surface waters.”
Silva v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 165 P.3d 247 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 662-4 (1993) ("A tort claim against the State shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after the claim accrues, except in the case of a medical tort claim.”
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.