What does Hawaii's teasing and abuse exception actually require?

HRS §663-9.1 excuses the owner only if the damage resulted from the animal being teased, tormented, or otherwise abused, and that conduct occurred without the owner's negligence, direction, or involvement - a narrower exception than it might first appear.

Does the exception apply if the owner directed or encouraged the provocation?

No - the statute specifically excludes the exception when the owner's own negligence, direction, or involvement contributed to the teasing or abuse. An owner who encouraged or allowed the provoking conduct can't rely on this defense.

Who typically raises this exception, the victim or a third party?

It's generally raised by the owner as a defense, often when a third party - not necessarily the victim themselves - provoked the animal in a way the owner had no hand in and couldn't reasonably have prevented.

Does Hawaii's general comparative negligence rule also apply to dog bite claims?

Yes - HRS §663-31's modified comparative negligence framework, with its 51% bar, applies to dog bite claims the same as it does to other personal injury claims in Hawaii.

Is trespassing a defense to a Hawaii dog bite claim?

Trespassing can factor into the broader negligence and comparative fault analysis, though Hawaii's dog bite statute doesn't carve out a separate, explicit trespassing exception the way some other states' statutes do.

Provocation, Abuse & the Owner's Involvement

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Hawaii's provocation-style defense sounds simple on the surface, but it comes with a real condition that narrows it considerably.

The exception, and its real limit

Under HRS §663-9.1, an owner is excused from liability if the animal caused damage as a proximate result of being teased, tormented, or otherwise abused — but only if that conduct occurred without the owner's own negligence, direction, or involvement. This is a narrower exception than it might first appear: it's not available to an owner who encouraged, directed, or was otherwise negligent in allowing the provoking conduct to happen.

Not limited to the victim's own conduct

This exception isn't necessarily about whether the bite victim themselves provoked the animal. It's often raised when a third party — someone other than the person ultimately bitten — teased or abused the dog in a way the owner had no hand in and couldn't reasonably have prevented, leading to an unrelated person getting hurt.

Comparative negligence still applies on top

Separately from the §663-9.1 exception, Hawaii's general modified comparative negligence rule under HRS §663-31 applies to dog bite claims the same way it applies to any other personal injury claim — the standard 51% bar governs how a victim's own fault affects recovery.

No separate trespassing carve-out

Unlike some states' dog bite statutes, Hawaii's doesn't write in an explicit trespassing exception. Trespassing can still factor into the broader negligence and comparative fault analysis, but it doesn't operate as its own standalone defense the way it does in some other jurisdictions.

Injured in Hawaii?

A local personal injury attorney can review your claim — many offer a free consultation.

Talk to a Hawaii attorney

Official sources

HRS § 663-31 — comparative negligence

This is general information, not legal advice. Whether an exception applies depends heavily on the specific facts. Confirm how these defenses might affect your case with a licensed Hawaii attorney.