Displaying 1 - 10 of 30
Titlesort descending Summary
Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station

The plaintiffs' dog died after being left in a hot van during transport from the Hawaii Quarantine Station to the veterinarian's office.  The court held that it was not necessary for plaintiffs to witness the dog's death to recover for serious mental distress and that medical testimony was not necessary to substantiate plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress.  In affirming the trial court's award for damages for the loss of property (the dog), the court held that the trial "court correctly applied the standards of law . . . and the issues of whether the damages were proximately caused by the defendant and have resulted in serious emotional distress to the plaintiffs are therefore within the discretion of the trier of fact."

Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc.

The cases concerns personal injuries sustained by one of the plaintiffs (Lisa) while she and her husband were on a horseback riding tour on the Dahana Ranch on the Big Island of Hawai'i. Prior to taking the ride, they signed waivers. The Courbats do not dispute that they both signed the Ranch's waiver form; rather, they assert that the Ranch's practice of booking ride reservations through an activity company, receiving payment prior to the arrival of the guest, and then, upon the guest's arrival at the Ranch, requiring the guest to sign a liability waiver as a precondition to horseback riding is an unfair and deceptive business practice. The question whether a waiver requirement would be materially important in booking a horseback tour remains one for the trier of fact. Because a genuine issue of material fact, resolvable only by the trier of fact, remains in dispute, the grant of summary judgment on the claim was erroneous the court held.

Detailed Discussion of Hawaii Great Ape Laws In Hawaii, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons are heavily regulated because of their dual status as both endangered/threatened species and restricted animals.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries.
Farrior v. Payton

This Hawaii case involves a suit against owners of dog to recover for injuries sustained when the plaintiffs, in an attempt to avoid what was believed to be an imminent attack by dog, fell off a natural rock wall.  Defendants' property abutted this rock wall and defendants considered those people who used the rock wall "trespassers."  After defendant's motion for a directed verdict were granted, the plaintiffs appealed.  On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that, in an action against an owner or harborer of a dog for injury inflicted by such animal, defendant's scienter (i. e. actual or constructive knowledge) of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the dog is (except where removed by statute) an essential element of the cause of action and a necessary prerequisite to recovery.  The evidence in the record established the fact that the Payton family not only knew of their dog's propensity to run and bark at strangers utilizing the 'short-cut' via the human-made seawall and the natural rock wall, but also expected such activity from their German shepherd dog.  Indeed, it was predictable that Mrs. Farrior would become frightened and would retreat to a precarious position.

Hawaii v. Kaneakua

Defendants stipulated that they were involved in cockfights and were prosecuted for numerous violations of § 1109(1)(d), part of Hawaii's cruelty to animals statute.  The reviewing court found that the statute was not vague, and was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process with regard to the charge against defendants; nor was the statute overly broad as applied to defendants.

HI - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

HI - Cruelty - Hawaii Cruelty to Animals Provisions (Chapter 711)

Under this set of Hawaii laws, a person commits the misdemeanor offense of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, cruelly beats or starves any animal, deprives a pet animal of necessary sustenance, mutilates, poisons, or kills without need

any animal

other than insects, vermin, or other pests, or engages in animal fighting enterprises.  Dog fighting constitutes a felony where the person owns or trains the dog to fight.  The section has enhanced penalties for cruelty to guide or service animals or interference with their duties.

HI - Disaster; Accomodations for Pets - Chapter 128. Civil Defense and Emergency Act.

In Hawaii, the governor shall prescribe rules to establish criteria, requirements, conditions, and limitations for providing accommodations to shelter pet animals. The director of civil defense must identify public and private shelters that are suitable to shelter pets.

HI - Dog - General Dog Provisions

This Hawaii statute provides the pertinent regulations for dogs in the state.  Included in its provisions are licensing, impoundment, seizure of loose or unlicensed dogs, and stray animals.  Of particular note is a provision that makes it

unlawful for any officer to knowingly sell or give any impounded dog to any person, firm, corporation, association, medical college, or university for the purpose of animal experimentation.

HI - Dog Bite - Chapter 142. Animals, Brands, and Fences.

This Hawaii statute provides that the owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent the recurrence of such incident.  Whenever

 a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions (with no applicable exceptions), any person may bring an action against the owner of the dog.  Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has bitten, injured, or maimed a person.  No ordinance enacted under this subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil liability of a person owning the offending dog.