Strict Liability vs. the One-Bite Rule in Hawaii

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Few states offer a clearer example of a gap between statutory text and judicial reality than Hawaii's dog bite law.

What the text actually says

HRS §663-9(a) states an owner is liable "regardless of" a lack of knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities — language that, read literally, eliminates the one-bite rule's core knowledge requirement entirely. On its face, this is textbook strict liability.

Why courts didn't read it that way

Hawaii courts distinguished subsection (a)'s general liability language from §663-9(b)'s absolute liability provision — which applies specifically to animals "known by species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious." Courts held dogs don't categorically belong in that stricter category, reasoning that limited how broadly subsection (a) ultimately got applied in practice.

The practical result: closer to one-bite

Despite the statute's seemingly strict text, Hawaii victims generally still need to show negligence, negligence per se, scienter (the owner's actual knowledge), or an intentional act to recover — functionally the opposite of what §663-9(a)'s literal language suggests. This mismatch has drawn real criticism from commentators and advocates, who've argued courts effectively read strict liability out of a statute drafted to create it.

A gap that could still shift

The tension between the statute's text and its judicial application remains a live issue in Hawaii. A future appellate ruling or legislative amendment could change how §663-9 is applied — worth watching for anyone tracking Hawaii dog bite law closely.

Official sources

• HRS § 663-31 — comparative negligence

This is general information, not legal advice. Which standard applies, and how strong your evidence is under it, depends on the specific facts. Confirm your situation with a licensed Hawaii attorney.