If you only remember one point about being sued after a car accident in Hawaii, remember this: Hawaii uses modified comparative fault under § 663-31: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault exceeds the total fault of the defendant(s). Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31. The personal-injury deadline is 2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7. Hawaii requires no-fault personal-injury protection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 431:10C; tort claims against at-fault drivers are generally limited unless injuries exceed PIP thresholds or certain exceptions apply.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Hawaii requires no-fault personal-injury protection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 431:10C; tort claims against at-fault drivers are generally limited unless injuries exceed PIP thresholds or certain exceptions apply.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Hawaii uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Walking through Hawaii facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Hawaii authority does the work at each step.
Two drivers collide in Hawaii. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Hawaii, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Hawaii uses modified comparative fault under § 663-31: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault exceeds the total fault of the defendant(s). Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Hawaii requires no-fault personal-injury protection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 431:10C; tort claims against at-fault drivers are generally limited unless injuries exceed PIP thresholds or certain exceptions apply.
In Hawaii the accident lawsuit turns on Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in Hawaii
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Hawaii) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Hawaii
ROBERT WAKEFIELD MIST and MARTHA A. MIST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTIN HOTELS, INC., a Delaware Corporation Dba
…r Martha’s claim for loss of consortium is barred under our comparative negligence statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-31, when her husband’s negligence is greater than that of defendants. We hold that Martha’s claim for loss of consortium is barred. In 1969 by Act 227, 1969 Session Laws of Hawaii, 3 the Legislature enacted our modified comparative negligence statute.…
Practitioners open ROBERT WAKEFIELD MIST and MARTHA A. MIST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTIN HOTELS, INC., a Delaware Corporation Dba when Hawaii car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Martha’s claim for loss of consortium is barred under our comparative negligence statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-31, when her husband’s negligence is greater than that of defendants. We hold that Martha’s claim for loss of consortium is barred." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
ADAM ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JACK CIONE, Respondent-Appellee, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants
…, 654 P.2d 343 (1982), requires application of the modified comparative negligence statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 663-31 (1985), to strict products liability claims. We granted certiorari to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision. Armstrong v. Cione, No. 10805 (Jan. 6, 1987). We affirm the Intermediate Court of Appeals as to the first alleged error, but…
Hawaii opinions such as ADAM ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JACK CIONE, Respondent-Appellee, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "P.2d 343 (1982), requires application of the modified comparative negligence statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 663-31 (1985), to strict products liability claims. We granted certiorari to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision. Armstrong v. Cione, No." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Elaine DUNBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Apollo THOMPSON and Pentagram Corporation Dba Burger King
…eement among legal scholars as to whether apportionment for comparative negligence purposes is to be made by comparing fault or by comparing the extent to which negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, 4 see, e.g., H. Woods, Comparative Fault § 5.5, at 124-26 (2d ed. 1987) (hereinafter Woods); 3 S. Speiser, C. Krause and A. Gans, The American Law of Torts § 13.22, at 7…
Hawaii opinions such as Elaine DUNBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Apollo THOMPSON and Pentagram Corporation Dba Burger King are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "H. Woods, Comparative Fault § 5.5, at 124-26 (2d ed. 1987) (hereinafter Woods); 3 S. Speiser, C. Krause and A. Gans, The American Law of Torts § 13." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Betty J. OZAKI, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia J. Dennis, Deceased, and Teruko
…Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-31 (1993), Hawai'i’s modified comparative negligence statute, applies only to actions sounding wholly in negligence. Where negligence combines with other grounds of liability to cause injury to a plaintiff, we believe pure comparative negligence principles apply. In our view pure comparative negligence principles are best suited to accomplish a fai…
Hawaii opinions such as Betty J. OZAKI, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia J. Dennis, Deceased, and Teruko are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-31 (1993), Hawai'i’s modified comparative negligence statute, applies only to actions sounding wholly in negligence." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
RANDOLPH W. T. WONG, Administrator of the Estate of WESLEY WAI LEONG WONG, Deceased; RICHARD J. H. WONG and ELSIE K
…decision is whether the circuit court erred in applying our comparative negligence law, HRS § 66S-31, as it read on May 2, 1975 when Wesley Wai Leong Wong was struck and fatally injured by a school bus owned by Defendant Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd. (Hawaiian Scenic), a joint tort-feasor with Defendant-appellant City and County of Honolulu (the City). 1 We conclude the court bel…
Hawaii opinions such as RANDOLPH W. T. WONG, Administrator of the Estate of WESLEY WAI LEONG WONG, Deceased; RICHARD J. H. WONG and ELSIE K are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "HRS § 66S-31, as it read on May 2, 1975 when Wesley Wai Leong Wong was struck and fatally injured by a school bus owned by Defendant Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd. (Hawaiian Scenic), a joint tort-feasor with Defendant-appellant City and County of Honolulu (the City)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Naomi D. Bissen v. Chiyoko Fujii — Levinson, J., dissenting
Naomi D. Bissen v. Chiyoko Fujii — Levinson, J., dissenting, 51 Haw. 636 (1970)
…dissent. I would have this court adopt the doctrine of pure comparative negligence for those cases, not yet final, which arose prior to the effective date of HES § 663-31 (Supp. 1969). In order to reach this conclusion it is necessary to examine the context in which this case arises. This background provides the case with some peculiar and, I think, controlling features. On Mar…
Practitioners open Naomi D. Bissen v. Chiyoko Fujii — Levinson, J., dissenting when Hawaii car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "I would have this court adopt the doctrine of pure comparative negligence for those cases, not yet final, which arose prior to the effective date of HES § 663-31 (Supp. 1969). In order to reach this conclusion it is necessary to examine the context in which this case arises." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Michele R. STEIGMAN, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OUTRIGGER ENTERPRISES, INC., Dba Ohana Surf Hotel
…ts a question of first impression, namely, whether Hawaii’s comparative negligence statute nullifies the common law tort defense barring recovery for plaintiffs injured by known or obvious dangers. Prior to the legislative enactment of comparative negligence, the courts of this state applied the rule of contributory negligence, and an injured plaintiff was denied recovery upon…
Practitioners open Michele R. STEIGMAN, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OUTRIGGER ENTERPRISES, INC., Dba Ohana Surf Hotel when Hawaii car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Hawaii’s comparative negligence statute nullifies the common law tort defense barring recovery for plaintiffs injured by known or obvious dangers." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
- Controlling authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31.
- In Hawaii, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7.
- Insurance: Hawaii requires no-fault personal-injury protection under Haw.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Hawaii?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31.
Comparative fault and negligence in Hawaii
Hawaii uses modified comparative fault under § 663-31: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault exceeds the total fault of the defendant(s). Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault.
In Hawaii, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Hawaii allocation rules.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Hawaii’s modified 51 rules under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Hawaii, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Hawaii?
2 years — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Hawaii requires no-fault personal-injury protection under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 431:10C; tort claims against at-fault drivers are generally limited unless injuries exceed PIP thresholds or certain exceptions apply. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.