Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability
Dog Bite Laws in Hawaii
Whether Hawaii holds a dog owner automatically liable, follows the one-bite rule, or takes a mixed approach, plus landlord liability and the main defenses.
How liability works in Hawaii
What the rule is, and what you must show.
Landlords & defenses
Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.
HRS §663-9.1 bars recovery where the injured person unlawfully entered or remained on the premises, or where the animal was teased, tormented, or abused without the owner’s involvement.
The full picture, with the source
Every field, and any recent development.
| Liability model | One-bite rule |
| Basis | Statute read through case law — HRS §663-9 as interpreted by Hubbell v. Iseke (1986) |
| What it covers | You show the owner or harborer was negligent and the animal proximately caused your injury. Under Hubbell v. Iseke you do not have to prove scienter (that the owner knew of a vicious propensity), but unreasonable conduct is still required. Absolute liability under §663-9(b) is reserved for animals dangerous by species or nature, which does not cover an ordinary dog. |
| Landlord | Generally no. A landlord is reached through ordinary negligence, which in practice means actual knowledge that the tenant’s dog was dangerous plus the ability to remove it. |
| Main defenses | No negligence · Trespassing · Provocation (teasing / tormenting) · Comparative fault |
What Hawaii dog-bite victims get wrong
Hawaii looks like a strict-liability state until you read the case law. On its face, HRS §663-9(a) says an owner is liable "regardless of" any lack of knowledge that the dog was dangerous, which sounds automatic. But in Hubbell v. Iseke (1986) the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that §663-9 is not strict liability at all. It only frees a victim from having to prove scienter; you still have to prove the owner acted unreasonably. So the working rule is negligence without the scienter hurdle, which puts Hawaii on the one-bite side of the line rather than the strict side. The one true strict provision, §663-9(b), imposes absolute liability only for animals that are dangerous by species or nature, and a family dog does not qualify.
Common questions
Is Hawaii a strict-liability state for dog bites?
No, even though the statute reads that way. Hubbell v. Iseke (1986) held that HRS §663-9 is negligence-based: it only removes the need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous, so you must still show the owner acted unreasonably.
Do I have to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous in Hawaii?
No. Under §663-9 as interpreted by Hubbell v. Iseke, you do not have to prove scienter. You do have to prove the owner’s conduct was unreasonable and that it caused your injury.
What does §663-9(b) absolute liability cover?
Only animals known to be dangerous by their species or nature, such as inherently wild or vicious animals. An ordinary domestic dog falls under subsection (a)’s negligence framework instead.
What defenses can a Hawaii dog owner raise?
That the owner was not negligent, that you were trespassing, or that the dog was provoked by being teased, tormented, or abused without the owner’s involvement. HRS §663-9.1 spells out the trespassing and provocation bars.
Not legal advicePlainStatute provides plain-language summaries of public law for general information only. This is not legal advice. Statutes change; always confirm current requirements with the official source linked above before acting.