Hawaii Theme Park Injury Lawyer

How Hawaii Law Frames a Theme Park Injury Claim

Two legal theories carry most theme park injury claims, and Hawaii's statutes set the deadlines, fault rules and damages limits that apply to both. Which one fits shapes who a claim may name and what has to be shown.

If your injury came from the condition of the park itself, such as its grounds, walkways, queues or attractions, the theory is usually premises liability: the duty a landowner or operator owes guests to keep the property reasonably safe. If it came from a ride, a restraint or a piece of equipment alleged to be defective in its design, its manufacture or its warnings, the theory is product liability. A ride restraint, meaning the lap bar, harness or belt that holds a rider in place, can fall under either, depending on whether the question is how it was built or how it was operated and maintained.

Under either theory, a negligence claim has to show four things: that a duty was owed, that it was breached, that the breach caused the injury, and what damages resulted. Being hurt does not by itself prove any of them, which is why the facts of the day matter so much.

A first question to weigh is whether the injury traces to the place, the equipment, or both. The general picture is on our theme park injury claims page; what follows is specific to Hawaii.

Which Situation Fits What Happened at the Park

What happened on the day often points to which theory fits, and so to who may be answerable for it. The situations this site covers, as they can arise at a Hawaii park, include:

• A roller coaster or other ride that malfunctions, stops suddenly, or has a restraint that opens or fails to hold.
• A slip, trip or fall on park grounds, wet walkways, stairs, queue lines or attraction platforms.
• Injuries on water slides, in wave pools or along lazy rivers, other than drowning, which a sibling site covers.
• Injuries where warnings, height or health restrictions, or staff supervision are alleged to have been inadequate.
• Injuries to children on rides and attractions built for younger guests.

Some injuries are not obvious at first. Forces on a ride can affect the body without any visible blow, a subject covered on our page about roller coaster brain injury.

A fall on a wet walkway usually raises premises liability questions. A restraint alleged to have failed may raise product liability questions about the manufacturer and questions about how the ride operator, the business or employee that runs the ride, loaded and checked it. If you are matching your experience to this list, noting where, when and how it happened is often the first step toward knowing which rules apply.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Injury Under Hawaii Law

If you were hurt, more than one party may share responsibility, and each is judged on its own legal basis:

• The park operator or property owner, for the condition of the grounds and the way rides are run (premises liability).
• The ride or equipment manufacturer, where a design, manufacturing or warning defect is alleged (product liability).
• Maintenance or inspection contractors, where an outside company serviced or checked the ride.
• The State of Hawaii or a county, where government owns or operates the property involved.

The last category changes the rules, and that is where the stakes rise for an injured guest. A claim against the State falls under Hawaii's State Tort Liability Act, and the official annotations to section 662-4 record a court holding that counties do not fall within that Act; claims against counties are governed instead by section 46-72. Both are explained below.

When several parties share responsibility, Hawaii's comparative-negligence rule weighs their negligence together against the injured person's. The ticket, the attraction's name, any contractor names on signs or equipment, and who owns the land can all help show which rules may apply.

Which Filing Deadlines and Notice Rules May Govern a Hawaii Claim

A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Missing the one that applies can end a claim, so knowing which applies is one of the first things at stake. Hawaii sets several, stated here as the statutes state them.

Section 657-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that actions "for the recovery of compensation for damage or injury to persons or property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued, and not after, except as provided in section 657-13." The period runs from when the cause of action accrued, which the court decisions annotated to the statute tie to what the injured person knew.

Section 657-13 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes applies when the person entitled to sue was, at the time the cause of action accrued, within the age of eighteen years, or under the other disabilities it lists. That person may bring the action "within the respective times limited in this part, after the disability is removed or at any time while the disability exists." The section excepts actions against the sheriff, chief of police or other officers, and its official annotations record a decision holding it not applicable to actions against the State.

Section 662-4 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that a tort claim against the State "shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after the claim accrues," except for medical tort claims, which follow section 657-7.3.

Section 46-72 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes applies before a county may be liable for injuries received on its streets, sidewalks or other public places, or caused by the negligence of a county official or employee. The injured person, or someone on their behalf, must give notice within two years after the injuries accrued to the county official the section identifies or the clerk of the county where the injuries occurred; the annotations describe this as written notice.

The wrongful-death period is covered below. If you are unsure which deadline fits, the questions to weigh are who owns or runs the property, whether the injured person was under eighteen, and when the injury was known. A conversation with our attorney can help sort through those answers.

If a Park Says the Guest Was Partly at Fault

Parks sometimes argue that a guest caused or added to their own injury. Hawaii answers with comparative fault, which weighs each side's share of negligence rather than letting any fault by the guest end the claim. Section 663-31 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides:

"Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person or in the case of more than one person, the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made."

In plain words, a guest found partly at fault may still recover, but the amount is reduced by their share. If the guest's share is greater than that of the defendants combined, the section directs the court to enter judgment for the defendant. The official annotations also record a court decision that the "known or obvious danger" defense is inconsistent with the legislative intent behind this statute.

A defendant may also raise a waiver, a document a guest sometimes signs before entering or riding that attempts to limit the operator's liability. Whether it has any effect depends on its language and the facts. If you are told you were partly to blame, a copy of any waiver and an account of what each person did are what an attorney would look at to assess how fault may be divided.

What Damages May Be Recovered — and the Limit on Pain and Suffering

Damages in a personal-injury case are generally described in categories: medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. What the law may allow depends on the injury, its treatment, its effect on work and daily life, and how fault is divided.

Hawaii places a specific limit on one category. Section 663-8.7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that damages recoverable for pain and suffering, as defined in section 663-8.5, "shall be limited to a maximum award" in the amount the statute sets, "provided that this limitation shall not apply to tort actions enumerated in section 663-10.9(2)." The limit applies to pain and suffering only; it does not cap medical expenses or lost income.

Section 663-10.9(2) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes lists the tort actions to which the limit does not apply, and whether a claim falls within that list depends on the kind of action and its facts. For someone whose injury has changed daily life, whether the limit or the exception governs is one of the more significant questions in a Hawaii case. Keeping a record of bills, missed work and how the injury affects each day helps show what each category may cover, and an attorney can help assess whether the exception may apply.

When Hawaii's Recreational-Use Rule May Affect a Claim

Property owners in Hawaii sometimes point to a statute that limits a landowner's duty to people using land for recreation. If it applies, it can remove the duty of care a claim depends on, so the stakes are high. Section 520-4 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that, except as recognized or provided in section 520-5, "an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not":

"(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose; (2) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; (3) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission or commission of such persons; and (4) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or persons who enter the premises in response to an injured recreational user."

The words "without charge" are central. A court decision annotated to the statute turned on the finding that no charge or fee was imposed. If an owner raises this rule, a ticket, receipt or pass showing a fee was paid is often the first thing to look for; its scope and its exceptions under section 520-5 are something an attorney can help assess.

Records That Can Show What Happened in a Hawaii Theme Park Injury Case

Because each rule above turns on facts, the records behind those facts often decide how a claim fares. If you were hurt, the records that usually matter include:

• Medical records and treatment documentation, from the first visit onward.
• Photos and video of the scene, the ride or the attraction, and of the injury itself.
• Any incident report made with the park.
• The names and contact details of witnesses.
• The equipment, restraint or product involved, and where it is now.
• Tickets, receipts, passes or entry records showing when and how the person entered, which can also bear on whether a fee was charged.

Official inspection or incident records held by a state agency may be relevant to what was known about a ride before an accident. An incident report records what someone described; it does not by itself establish what caused an injury.

Families often find that gathering these pieces is how they first see the full picture, and which deadlines and defendants are involved. If it would help to talk through those records and dates, you can request a case evaluation.

Wrongful Death After a Fatal Theme Park Accident in Hawaii

This section is for families after a death. Hawaii treats a wrongful-death claim, a claim brought because a person's death was caused by someone else's wrongful conduct, under its own statute and its own deadline.

Section 663-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that when a death "is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person, the deceased's legal representative, or any of the persons enumerated in subsection (b), may maintain an action against the person causing the death or against the person responsible for the death." The action is maintained on behalf of the persons listed in subsection (b), subject to the exceptions the section states. It also provides that any action under the section "shall be commenced within two years from the date of death of the injured person, except as otherwise provided." The statute sets out the damages that may be recovered and provides that certain amounts, including those connected to the deceased's illness and burial, do not form part of the estate.

The clock here runs from the date of death, which can differ from the injury date. The official annotations to section 657-13 record a decision that its tolling provision applies to the section 663-3 period. The comparative-fault rule in section 663-31 expressly covers actions for negligence "resulting in death," and the pain-and-suffering limit in section 663-8.7, with its exception, may also bear on a death claim. A conversation with our attorney can help a family understand which of these rules apply.