Hawaii Dog Bite Laws Explained (Mixed Statute)
Mixed Statute
Hawaii is often called a strict liability state and is not one — HRS § 663-9 removes the need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous, but the owner’s conduct must still be shown unreasonable.
How Hawaii Dog Bite Law Works
If a dog bit you in Hawaii, the statute helps you in a specific and frequently misunderstood way. HRS § 663-9 provides that an animal's owner or harborer is liable regardless of their lack of scienter — meaning you do not have to prove they knew the dog was dangerous. That is the single hardest element in a traditional dog bite claim, and Hawaii takes it off the table.
What it does not do is create strict liability. Hawaii's Intermediate Court of Appeals has held that § 663-9 does not establish strict liability for dog bites; it clarifies that a victim basing their claim on negligence need not prove scienter, so long as the owner's conduct is shown to be unreasonable. Hawaii is routinely listed as a strict liability state in national summaries, and that is not what its courts have said.
In practice that places Hawaii closer to Nevada or Texas than to California or Florida. The claim turns on what the owner did rather than what the owner knew — a dog off-leash where leashing was required, a gate that had been broken for weeks, an animal left with someone unable to control it.
There is one route where liability is genuinely absolute. Section 663-9 imposes absolute liability where the animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious. That rarely reaches an ordinary domestic dog, but where it applies the owner's conduct is beside the point.
Fees are contingency, nothing upfront, commonly around a third of any recovery, and typically nothing owed if there is no recovery. Hawaii claims often need more investigation than the strict liability label implies, which is a reason to have one assessed rather than a reason to assume it is straightforward.
Timelines depend on how contested the owner's conduct is. A loose dog with a Hawaiian Humane Society investigation record can resolve in months; a case where the owner insists nothing was wrong with their fence takes longer, because that evidence has to be assembled.
Some bites do not need a lawyer. What changes it here: an insurer whose position is that the owner did nothing wrong — that is an argument about the element you must prove; any injury requiring surgery or leaving a scar; a child victim; a denied claim; and any incident involving a county, because of the six-month notice requirement.
The evidence that decides a Hawaii claim: photographs of the wound over time, photographs of the property including fencing and gates, the Hawaiian Humane Society investigation record, witness contacts, the owner's insurance details, and anything showing how the dog was normally kept — which matters more here than the statute's headline suggests.
| Liability rule | Mixed statute. HRS § 663-9 removes the need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous, but does not create strict liability — the owner's conduct must still be shown unreasonable. Animals dangerous by species or nature carry absolute liability. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Liability of animal ownersHaw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the biteHaw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 |
| If the victim is a child | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-13 tolls the limitations period during minority, so the two years generally begins when the child turns 18. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative negligence (51% bar)Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | None in ordinary personal injury claims. Hawaii caps non-economic damages in medical tort actions only. |
| Does breed matter? | Hawaii has no statewide breed-specific legislation, and county animal ordinances are behaviour-based. Breed plays no role in the § 663-9 analysis. |
| Dangerous dog law | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9.1 (dog owner liability); county dangerous dog ordinances |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
Hawaii Is Not Actually a Strict Liability State
HRS § 663-9 is frequently described as a strict liability statute and is not one. Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals has held it removes the scienter requirement from a negligence claim — the owner’s conduct must still be shown unreasonable.
The statutory language reads broadly: an animal owner or harborer is liable in damages regardless of their lack of scienter of the animal's vicious or dangerous propensities. Read alone, that sounds like California's § 3342 or Florida's § 767.04.
Hawaii's appellate courts have read it differently. The section does not establish strict liability for canine-inflicted injuries; it clarifies that a victim basing their case on negligence does not have to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. Liability still requires showing the owner's conduct was unreasonable.
That places Hawaii closer to Nevada and Texas in practice than to the strict liability states it is often grouped with — and it means evidence about how the dog was being kept carries more weight in a Hawaii claim than the statute's headline suggests.
What § 663-9 Does Give You
It removes the hardest element of a traditional one-bite claim. In Texas or Idaho you must prove the owner knew or had reason to know the dog was dangerous. In Hawaii you do not — only that the owner acted unreasonably.
That is a substantial advantage even without strict liability. Scienter evidence — prior bites, prior complaints, a muzzle, a warning sign — is the material that is hardest to obtain, often lives with third parties, and frequently does not exist at all for a dog with a clean history.
What replaces it is evidence about the owner's conduct on the day, which is usually more accessible: a dog off-leash where leashing was required, a gate that had been broken for weeks, an animal left with someone unable to control it. Those are facts an investigator can document.
Absolute Liability for Animals Dangerous by Nature
Section 663-9 imposes absolute liability where the animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious. That standard does not depend on the owner’s conduct at all.
The provision distinguishes between ordinary domestic animals and those whose species or nature makes them inherently dangerous. For the latter, liability attaches to the harm rather than to any failing by the keeper.
For dog bite claims this rarely applies, since domestic dogs are not dangerous by species. Where it becomes relevant is with hybrids, exotic animals, or animals kept in circumstances that bring them within the provision — and where it does apply, it is a materially stronger position than the ordinary § 663-9 analysis.
County Leash Ordinances Do the Practical Work
Because a Hawaii claim turns on the owner’s conduct rather than the dog’s history, a violated county leash ordinance is often the most direct evidence available that the owner acted unreasonably.
Hawaii's counties each maintain their own animal ordinances, and on Oahu the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu require dogs to be leashed or otherwise restrained when off the owner's premises. A dog loose in a park, on a beach access path, or in a residential street is generally in breach of that requirement.
That breach is what a § 663-9 claim needs. The statute spares you from proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous, but not from showing the owner behaved unreasonably — and letting a dog run loose in violation of an ordinance is about as clear an example of unreasonable conduct as the evidence usually gets.
For anyone investigating a Hawaii claim, the practical instruction is to establish whether a leash requirement applied at that location, whether the dog was in breach of it, and whether any citation issued. Those are documentable facts, unlike the owner's state of knowledge.
Delivery Workers, Postal Carriers, and Tourists
Route workers performing lawful duties are invitees under Hawaii premises law and fall well within § 663-9. Visitors and tourists unfamiliar with a property occupy the same position, provided they were lawfully present.
A postal carrier, delivery driver, meter reader or contractor performing a job on a property is owed the highest duty of care under Hawaii premises principles, so the trespass arguments that weaken some claims do not apply. USPS carriers additionally have a FECA route for the employer-side claim, which runs independently and does not block a civil claim against the owner. Private couriers have no federal equivalent.
Hawaii's visitor economy produces a distinct pattern of claims from people bitten while staying in short-term rentals, walking unfamiliar residential streets, or on beach access paths. Lawful presence is rarely the issue in those cases — what matters, as always in Hawaii, is what the owner was doing with the dog.
A practical point for visitors specifically: the two-year limitations period runs the same way whether you live in Hawaii or were there for a week, and evidence about how the dog was kept becomes considerably harder to gather once you have flown home. Reporting to the Hawaiian Humane Society before leaving the island matters more for a visitor than for a resident.
Comparative Negligence and the 51% Bar
HRS § 663-31 reduces damages by your share of fault and bars recovery once your negligence is greater than the aggregate negligence of the defendants.
The comparison is against the defendants' combined fault rather than any single defendant, which can work in a claimant's favour where more than one party bears responsibility — an owner and a landlord, for instance.
There is a compounding effect specific to Hawaii's structure. Because the claim already requires showing the owner acted unreasonably, an argument that you provoked the dog does double duty: it raises your fault share under § 663-31 and simultaneously undercuts the contention that the owner's conduct was the problem.
The Hawaiian Humane Society’s Enforcement Role
On Oahu, the Hawaiian Humane Society is the only authority outside the Honolulu Police Department able to rescue animals and investigate cruelty on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu.
That is an unusual arrangement. Rather than a municipal animal control department, enforcement and investigation run through a nonprofit organisation operating under authority from the City and County — so bite investigations, records and any dangerous dog process sit with the Humane Society rather than with a city agency.
For a claimant it means knowing where to direct a report and where the records live. In a jurisdiction where the claim turns on the owner's conduct rather than the dog's history, that investigation file is often the most useful independent evidence available.
Landlord Liability in Hawaii
Section 663-9 reaches the owner or harborer of an animal. "Harborer" is broader than owner, and can bring a landlord or property occupier within the statute directly rather than through ordinary negligence.
The statute's use of 'owner or harborer' matters. Someone who harbours an animal — permits it to be kept on premises they control — may fall inside the section rather than being answerable only under common-law premises principles. That is a wider route to a second defendant than most state statutes provide.
Where the harborer theory does not reach, the ordinary analysis applies: knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities plus practical ability to require its removal, most often evidenced by prior written complaints and a lease provision covering pets.
Wrongful Death After a Fatal Attack
HRS § 663-3 permits recovery by the surviving spouse, reciprocal beneficiary, children, parents and any person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased.
Hawaii's wrongful death statute is comparatively generous in who may claim, expressly extending to reciprocal beneficiaries and to dependants beyond the immediate family. Recoverable losses include loss of society, companionship, comfort and consortium alongside pecuniary loss.
The two-year period under HRS § 657-7 applies, measured from the date of death rather than the date of the attack where those differ.
Uninsured Owners and the Hawaii Housing Market
Most claims are paid from a homeowners or renters policy. Hawaii’s high proportion of renters and multi-unit housing makes renters and building policies a more common source here than in many states.
Renters policies routinely include personal liability responding to a dog bite, and tenants frequently do not realise it. Where the incident occurred in a common area of a building, the building's own policy may respond alongside the tenant's.
Absent coverage, the claim becomes a direct action against personal assets, and its value tracks what the defendant actually owns. Hawaii's cost of living makes that assessment worth doing early rather than assuming a homeowner has substantial resources.
Deadlines and Government Claims
Two years from the date of the bite under HRS § 657-7, tolled during minority by § 657-13. A claim against a county requires written notice within six months under HRS § 46-72.
The two-year period covers both the § 663-9 claim and any parallel negligence theory. Hawaii applies a discovery rule in limited circumstances where the injury or its cause was not reasonably discoverable at the time.
The county notice requirement is the trap. Six months is far shorter than the general limitations period, and it applies where a county — including the City and County of Honolulu — is a potential defendant. Claims against the State proceed separately under the State Tort Liability Act in HRS Chapter 662.
Breed, Quarantine, and Two Things People Confuse
Hawaii has no breed-specific legislation, and its well-known animal quarantine rules are about rabies prevention rather than bite liability. Hawaii is rabies-free.
County ordinances in Hawaii are behaviour-based, and breed plays no part in the § 663-9 analysis. There is no statewide breed restriction.
Hawaii's import quarantine requirements are frequently confused with dog bite rules and are unrelated to them. They exist because Hawaii is one of the few rabies-free jurisdictions in the world, which also means the post-bite rabies concern that drives ten-day observation periods on the mainland operates differently here — a point worth clarifying with a treating clinician rather than assuming mainland protocols apply.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Hawaii has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Hawaii |
|---|---|---|
| No unreasonable conduct by the owner | Available | The central defense, and the reason Hawaii is not a strict liability state. The Intermediate Court of Appeals has held § 663-9 does not create strict liability for dog bites — it removes the scienter requirement from a claim that still rests on the owner behaving unreasonably. |
| Provocation | Available | Feeds into comparative negligence under HRS § 663-31 and simultaneously undercuts the argument that the owner's conduct was unreasonable. |
| Trespassing | Available | Hawaii premises-liability principles limit the duty owed to a trespasser, which substantially weakens the claim. |
| Comparative fault above 50% | Available | HRS § 663-31 bars recovery once your negligence exceeds the aggregate negligence of the defendants. |
| No knowledge of vicious propensity | Not a defense | Expressly removed by § 663-9. The owner's lack of scienter is not a defense, which is the statute's entire purpose. |
| Any defense to a dangerous-by-nature animal | Not a defense | Section 663-9 imposes ABSOLUTE liability where the animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious — a stricter standard than applies to ordinary dogs. |
| Breed of the dog | Not a defense | Hawaii has no breed-specific legislation and breed is not part of the analysis. |
Modified comparative negligence (51% bar). Damages are reduced by your share of fault and barred once your negligence is greater than the aggregate negligence of the defendants. Because a Hawaii claim already requires showing the owner acted unreasonably, a provocation argument attacks the claim on two fronts at once.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 51% or more, Hawaii law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in Hawaii
Hawaii allows two years from the date of the bite under HRS § 657-7, covering both a § 663-9 claim and any parallel negligence theory. Hawaii applies a discovery rule in limited circumstances where the injury or its cause was not reasonably discoverable at the time, though that is a narrow exception rather than something to plan around. For a minor, HRS § 657-13 tolls the limitations period during minority, so the two years generally begins when the child turns 18. A wrongful death claim under HRS § 663-3 also runs two years, measured from the date of death rather than the date of the attack where those differ. The deadline that most often ends Hawaii claims is the county one. HRS § 46-72 requires written notice within six months where a county is a potential defendant — and because the City and County of Honolulu covers the whole of Oahu, that captures a substantial share of the state's population. A bite involving a police K-9, a county-owned animal, or an incident on county property therefore runs on a six-month clock rather than a two-year one. Claims against the State proceed separately under the State Tort Liability Act in HRS Chapter 662, with its own procedures and limits.
Dog bite law varies more between states than most people expect — the same attack can be a straightforward claim in one state and a difficult one across a state line.
| State | Rule | Statute | Deadline | Shared fault | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ala. Code § 3-6-1 | 2 years | Contributory (any fault bars) | The statute reaches bites on the owner’s property only, and § 3-6-3 cuts the claim to actual expenses where the owner knew nothing about the dog. |
| Alaska dog bite laws | One-bite / negligence | No statute (AS 09.17.010 caps damages) | 2 years | Pure comparative | Non-economic damages capped at $400,000 — or $1,000,000 where the injury is severe permanent disfigurement. |
| Arizona dog bite laws | Strict liability | A.R.S. § 11-1025 | 1 year (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Pure comparative | Shortest deadline in the country for the statutory claim; breed cannot be considered by any legal decision-maker. |
| Arkansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute (Ark. Code § 5-62-125 criminal) | 3 years | Modified (50% bar) | Recovery is barred at exactly 50 percent fault, not 51 — and a minor’s window runs three years past majority. |
| California dog bite laws | Strict liability | Civ. Code § 3342 | 2 years | Pure comparative | Minor's claim tolled until age 18; cities cannot ban dogs by breed. |
| Colorado dog bite laws | Mixed statute | C.R.S. § 13-21-124 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Strict liability reaches economic damages only, and only on serious bodily injury. A posted "Beware of Dog" sign is a complete defense. |
| Connecticut dog bite laws | Strict liability | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 | 3 years (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers any damage a dog does, not just bites. A child under seven is presumed not to have trespassed or teased — the burden shifts to the defendant. |
| Delaware dog bite laws | Strict liability | 16 Del. C. § 3053F | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Animal control is run statewide by Delaware Animal Services rather than by each city — the only state on this site with a single centralised agency. |
| District of Columbia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | D.C. Code §§ 8-1808, 8-1812 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | Letting a dog run at large is evidence of negligence, and lack of knowledge is no excuse — but any contributory fault at all still defeats the claim. |
| Florida dog bite laws | Strict liability | Fla. Stat. § 767.04 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | A posted "Bad Dog" sign is a complete defense — except against a child under 6. |
| Georgia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | A violated local leash ordinance is by itself sufficient proof of vicious propensity. Fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Hawaii (this page) | Mixed statute | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The statute removes the scienter requirement but not the need to prove unreasonable conduct — except for animals dangerous by species or nature, where liability is absolute. |
| Idaho dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute; Idaho Code § 25-2805 (at large) | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No strict liability statute. Recovery runs on scienter or negligence, and the fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Illinois dog bite laws | Strict liability | 510 ILCS 5/16 | 2 years (1 year vs. a local public entity) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers attacks and attempted attacks with no bite, and "owner" includes anyone who keeps, harbors or has custody of the dog. |
| Indiana dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability applies ONLY to people performing a duty imposed by law — mail carriers, meter readers, police. Everyone else gets the one-bite rule. |
| Iowa dog bite laws | Strict liability | Iowa Code § 351.28 | 2 years | Contributory negligence is not a defense | Unusually claimant-friendly: the only statutory defenses are that the victim was committing an unlawful act, or that the dog had rabies. |
| Kansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law scienter | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No dog bite statute, and the fault bar sits at 50%. Local leash ordinances do most of the practical work in establishing negligence. |
| Kentucky dog bite laws | Strict liability | KRS 258.235(4) | 1 year | Pure comparative | The statutory definition of "owner" is broad enough to make a landlord strictly liable — Maupin v. Tankersley (Ky. 2018). Only one year to file. |
| Louisiana dog bite laws | Strict liability | La. Civ. Code art. 2321 | 2 years (1 year before 1 July 2024) | Pure comparative | A civil-law jurisdiction. Prescription doubled from one year to two on 1 July 2024, and the change applies only to injuries arising after that date. |
| Maine dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 7 M.R.S. § 3961 | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | The longest filing deadline in the country at six years — but strict liability applies only where the dog injured you OFF the owner's premises. |
| Maryland dog bite laws | Strict liability (at large) + presumption | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 | 3 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Breed-neutral since a 2014 legislative reversal of Tracey v. Solesky — but pure contributory negligence stacked on genuine strict liability means any claimant fault, even 1%, can still zero out the claim. |
| Massachusetts dog bite laws | Strict liability (owners and keepers) | MGL c. 140, § 155 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability runs against anyone temporarily caring for the dog — boarding kennels, dog walkers, pet sitters — on the same strict liability terms as the owner. Double damages are mandatory (not discretionary) where the owner had prior knowledge. |
| Michigan dog bite laws | Strict liability | MCL 287.351 | 3 years | Modified — bars non-economic damages only | Over 50% fault removes pain and suffering but not medical bills. Provocation is judged objectively, so an accidental act can count. |
| Minnesota dog bite laws | Strict liability | Minn. Stat. § 347.22 | 6 years | Modified (51% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest of any strict liability state on this site. The statute covers any "attack or injury," not only bites, giving full protection to victims knocked down or injured by large dogs without being bitten. |
| Mississippi dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Miss. Code § 15-1-49 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Mississippi is one of very few states with no civil dog bite statute — claims run on common law, requiring proof the owner knew the dog was dangerous before the attack. Mississippi's pure comparative fault rule means even a plaintiff with significant fault recovers a proportional share of damages. |
| Missouri dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSMo § 273.036 | 5 years | Pure comparative | Longest filing window on this list; minor's claim tolled to 21. |
| Montana dog bite laws | Strict liability | Mont. Code § 27-1-715 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Rural insurance market means coverage confirmation is a critical early investigation step — uninsured homeowners rates are higher in Montana than in most urban strict liability states on this site. |
| Nebraska dog bite laws | Strict liability | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state. § 54-601 covers "killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing" — broader than bite-only statutes. |
| Nevada dog bite laws | Negligence (no statute) | No dog bite statute — Glass v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 87 Nev. 321 (1971) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The only state here with no dog bite statute at all. Nevada rejected the one-bite rule in 1971 — claims run on ordinary negligence. |
| New Hampshire dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSA 466:19 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Defenses are statutory and narrow — only trespass and deliberate provocation (teasing, tormenting, abusing the dog) are complete defenses. Government entity claims require written notice within 60 days for municipal defendants under RSA 507-B:7. |
| New Jersey dog bite laws | Strict liability | N.J. Stat. § 4:19-16 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | One of the oldest strict liability statutes in the country (enacted 1933). Harboring liability extends to landlords and employers who knowingly permit a dangerous dog — both faces of the same claim, not alternatives. |
| New Mexico dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NMSA § 37-1-8 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Government entity notice deadline is only 90 days under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMSA § 41-4-16) — the shortest of any state on this site. Claims run on common law with no civil dog bite statute. |
| New York dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Strict liability covers medical and veterinary costs only. Flanders v. Goodfellow (Apr 2025) restored ordinary negligence claims after 19 years. |
| North Carolina dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.C.G.S. §§ 67-4.4, 67-12 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | The harshest fault rule in the country. Any contributory negligence at all, however slight, defeats the entire claim. |
| North Dakota dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NDCC 28-01-16(5) (no civil bite statute) | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest personal injury window of any state on this site. Modified 50% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault recovers nothing — stricter than the 51% bar in neighboring Wyoming and New Hampshire. |
| Ohio dog bite laws | Strict liability | Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Liability reaches the owner, keeper AND harborer. Avery's Law (Mar 2026) added a $100,000 insurance mandate for dangerous dogs. |
| Oklahoma dog bite laws | Strict liability | 4 O.S. § 42.1 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Oklahoma's comparative fault bar falls at 50% — a plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing. This is one percentage point more restrictive than Oregon and New Jersey, where 50% plaintiff fault still allows a half-damages recovery. |
| Oregon dog bite laws | Strict liability | ORS 31.360 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances statewide under ORS 609.205 — no city or county may restrict or regulate dogs by breed. The liability analysis under ORS 31.360 is fully breed-neutral. |
| Pennsylvania dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 3 P.S. § 459-502 (Dog Law) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability covers medical costs only. Pain and suffering requires proving a "severe injury" or the dog's dangerous propensities. |
| Rhode Island dog bite laws | Strict liability | RIGL § 4-13-16 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by victim fault, regardless of the percentage. A plaintiff found 90% at fault still recovers 10% of their damages. The most plaintiff-favorable comparative fault system in New England. |
| South Carolina dog bite laws | Strict liability | S.C. Code § 47-3-110 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability is express in the statute — liability extends to any person having the dog "in their care or keeping," making dog walkers and boarding facilities directly liable on the same strict liability terms as the registered owner. |
| South Dakota dog bite laws | Strict liability | SDCL § 40-34-1 | 3 years | Slight/gross doctrine | Extends strict liability to "keepers and harborers" — not just the registered owner. Uses unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence rather than standard percentage-based fault. Government entity claims require 180-day written notice under SDCL § 3-21-2. |
| Tennessee dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 | 1 year | Modified (50% bar) | The only state with a "residential exclusion" — strict liability drops away if the bite happened on the owner's own residential or farm property. |
| Texas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No statute — Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | No dog bite statute. Recovery requires proving the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities, or ordinary negligent handling. |
| Utah dog bite laws | Strict liability | Utah Code § 18-1-1 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state in the country. Utah's statute also has no express lawful-presence language, making the reach of strict liability potentially broader than states with that textual limitation. |
| Vermont dog bite laws | Strict liability | 20 V.S.A. § 3461 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Statute requires victim to have been "peaceably conducting himself or herself" in a lawful location — courts interpret this narrowly to exclude only deliberate provocateurs, not ordinary people in normal activity. Vermont's rural character means farm policies rather than homeowners insurance are common in agricultural-area cases. |
| Virginia dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law one-bite rule | 2 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Two compounding disadvantages for victims: no strict liability statute (must prove owner's prior knowledge) plus pure contributory negligence (any fault bars entirely). Strict liability only available after a prior "dangerous dog" designation under § 3.2-6553. |
| Washington dog bite laws | Strict liability | RCW 16.08.040 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Broad strict liability, but provocation is a COMPLETE defense — and a fenced or posted property removes the implied consent that makes you lawfully present. |
| West Virginia dog bite laws | Strict liability | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Harboring theory expressly extends strict liability to landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog on their rental property — a second defendant category not available in most strict liability states. |
| Wisconsin dog bite laws | Strict liability | Wis. Stat. § 174.02 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Double damages are mandatory by statute — not discretionary — whenever the owner was notified or knew the dog had previously injured someone. The entire damages award doubles automatically once prior knowledge is established. |
| Wyoming dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105 (no civil bite statute) | 4 years | Modified (51% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — the longest of any one-bite rule state on this site. Modified 51% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers half their damages, unlike neighboring one-bite states. |
Hawaii dog bite questions, answered
The questions Hawaii readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Is Hawaii a strict liability state for dog bites?
No, despite frequently being described as one. HRS § 663-9 provides that an animal owner is liable regardless of their lack of scienter — meaning you need not prove they knew the dog was dangerous. But Hawaii's Intermediate Court of Appeals has held the statute does not establish strict liability for dog bites: it removes the scienter element from a claim that still requires showing the owner's conduct was unreasonable.
What does § 663-9 actually do for me then?
It removes the hardest element of a traditional one-bite claim. In Texas or Idaho you would need to prove the owner knew or had reason to know the dog was dangerous. In Hawaii you do not — you need only show the owner acted unreasonably, which is usually established by concrete facts such as a loose dog, a failed gate, or inadequate restraint.
When is liability absolute in Hawaii?
Section 663-9 imposes absolute liability where the animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious. That is a stricter standard than applies to an ordinary domestic dog, and it does not depend on the owner's conduct at all.
How long do I have to file in Hawaii?
Two years from the date of the bite under HRS § 657-7. For a minor, § 657-13 tolls the period until they turn 18. A claim against a county requires written notice within six months under HRS § 46-72, and claims against the State proceed under the State Tort Liability Act in Chapter 662.
Can I recover if I was partly at fault?
Up to a point. HRS § 663-31 reduces your damages by your share of fault and bars recovery once your negligence is greater than the aggregate negligence of the defendants. Provocation is particularly damaging in Hawaii because it works twice — it raises your fault share and undercuts the argument that the owner behaved unreasonably.
Who investigates dog bites on Oahu?
The Hawaiian Humane Society, which is the only authority outside the Honolulu Police Department able to rescue animals and investigate cruelty on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu. Bite investigations and the resulting records run through that arrangement rather than through a municipal animal control department.
Are any breeds restricted in Hawaii?
No. Hawaii has no statewide breed-specific legislation, and county ordinances are behaviour-based. Breed is not part of the § 663-9 analysis. Note separately that Hawaii's strict animal quarantine rules exist for rabies prevention and are unrelated to bite liability — Hawaii is rabies-free.
Key Takeaways for Hawaii Dog Bite Victims
Hawaii follows the Mixed Statute standard — that determines whether you need to prove the owner's prior knowledge or can hold them liable automatically. Understanding which standard applies is the first step in knowing whether you have a viable claim.
Your filing deadline is fixed by state law. Missing it permanently closes your case, no matter how strong the evidence is. Start the clock from the date of the bite.
Document everything from day one — photos of the injury, medical records, the dog owner's name, and any witness contact details. That documentation is the single most controllable factor in how much you ultimately recover.
Ready to understand what your case may be worth? See Hawaii settlement amounts or connect with a Hawaii dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice