Does Hawaii's dog bite statute use the word "harborer" instead of just "owner"?

Yes - HRS §663-9 applies to the "owner or harborer" of an animal. A harborer is someone who shelters or has custody of the dog, which can be broader than strict legal ownership, though it still generally requires a meaningful degree of control over the animal.

What would a victim need to prove against a Hawaii landlord?

Generally, actual knowledge that the specific dog had dangerous propensities, combined with some degree of control over the premises that would have allowed the landlord to address the risk - a negligence-based standard distinct from the dog bite statute's harborer language.

Does the teasing/abuse exception under §663-9.1 apply to a landlord negligence claim?

That exception is specific to the §663-9 framework governing owners and harborers. A separate negligence claim against a landlord who wasn't a harborer would be evaluated under ordinary negligence principles instead.

Is the Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Dog Bite in Hawaii?

Q: Does a landlord automatically become a "harborer" just by renting to a tenant with a dog?

No - merely allowing a tenant to keep a dog on the property doesn't typically make a landlord a harborer under §663-9. Harboring generally requires actively sheltering or exercising some control over the animal itself, not just permitting its presence.

Q: Can a landlord still be liable under a different legal theory?

Yes - a landlord could face liability under ordinary negligence principles if they knew the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the practical ability to address it, such as enforcing a lease term or requiring the dog's removal, but failed to act.

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Hawaii's statute reaches slightly further than "owner" alone — but that extra reach doesn't automatically catch a typical landlord.

"Owner or harborer" — a slightly broader reach

HRS §663-9 applies to the "owner or harborer" of an animal, not just the legal owner. A harborer is someone who shelters or has meaningful custody of the dog — a category that could, in principle, reach someone other than the titled owner.

But renting to a tenant with a dog isn't enough

Merely allowing a tenant to keep a dog on rental property doesn't typically make a landlord a harborer under §663-9. Harboring generally requires actively sheltering or exercising some real control over the animal itself — not simply permitting its presence as part of a tenancy.

Negligence remains the real path

A landlord could still face liability under ordinary negligence principles if they knew the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the practical ability to address it — for example, by enforcing a lease provision or requiring the dog's removal — but failed to act. This requires actual knowledge of the specific dog's dangerous propensities, not just awareness that tenants generally keep pets.

A different framework applies

The §663-9.1 teasing/abuse exception is specific to the owner-or-harborer framework under §663-9. A negligence claim against a landlord who doesn't qualify as a harborer is evaluated under ordinary negligence principles instead, separate from that statutory exception.

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. Landlord liability for a tenant's dog turns heavily on the specific facts and what the landlord actually knew. Confirm how this applies to your situation with a licensed Hawaii attorney.