§520-4  Liability of owner limited. 
(a)  Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 520-6, 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.



(b)  An owner of land who is required or
compelled to provide access or parking for such access through or across the
owner's property because of state or county land use, zoning, or planning law,
ordinance, rule, ruling, or order, to reach property used for recreation
purposes, or as part of a habitat conservation plan, or safe harbor agreement,
shall be afforded the same protection as to such access, including parking for
such access, as an owner of land who invites or permits any person to use that
owner's property for recreational purposes under subsection (a). [L 1969, c
186, §4; am L 1996, c 151, §2; am L 1997, c 272, §3 and c 380, §9]



 



Case Notes



 



  U.S. government immune from negligence liability under Hawaii
recreational use statute (HRUS) for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff
while plaintiff was using a military recreational facility, where (1) because
the government did not impose a "charge" or "fee" for
plaintiff to enter upon and use the recreational facility, plaintiff's use of
the government's property was "without charge" under the statute; (2)
the fact that dock on which plaintiff was injured was closed to everyone except
the instructors and students of the sailing course on day of plaintiff's injury
did not strip the government of its HRUS immunity; (3) plaintiff argued that
legislative history indicated that HRUS was not intended to immunize businesses
from liability to their business invitees, there was no need to resort to
statute's legislative history in search of an exception that was clearly not
included; and (4) although plaintiff may have had professional as well as
personal reasons for taking the sailing course, plaintiff's alleged
"professional" motivation did not convert plaintiff into a
"nonrecreational" user; plaintiff's subjective intent was, in the
situation, immaterial.  181 F.3d 1064.



  Where, pursuant to subsection (a)(2), plaintiff was neither
an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care was owed, landowner owed no duty
to prevent or warn plaintiff for plaintiff's use of landowner's land, access
land, and use of public beach and ocean fronting land.  91 H. 345 (App.), 984
P.2d 104.



  Cited:  902 F. Supp. 1207; 916 F. Supp. 1511.