A statute the courts didn't apply as written
HRS §663-9(a) states an owner "shall be liable in damages... regardless of the... lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal" — textbook strict liability language. Separately, §663-9(b) imposes absolute liability for animals "known by species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious."
Hawaii courts have held that dogs don't categorically fall into that second, stricter category — "dogs are not dangerous, wild or vicious by species or nature" — and have generally required victims to prove negligence, negligence per se, scienter, or an intentional act, despite the statute's seemingly strict text.
HRS §663-9.1 provides a provocation-style exception: no liability if the damage resulted from the animal being teased, tormented, or abused, without the owner's negligence, direction, or involvement.