§662-4  Statute of limitations.  A tort
claim against the State shall be forever barred unless action is begun within
two years after the claim accrues, except in the case of a medical tort claim
when the limitation of action provisions set forth in section 657-7.3 shall
apply. [L 1957, c 312, pt of §1; Supp, §245A-4; HRS §662-4; am L 1976, c 219,
§16]



 



Case Notes



 



  Supersedes §46-72 and Honolulu Charter §12-111.  55 H. 216,
517 P.2d 51; 56 H. 135, 531 P.2d 648.



  Only this section of this chapter is applicable to the city
and county of Honolulu.  56 H. 241, 534 P.2d 489.



  Claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known
that an actionable wrong has been committed.  63 H. 117, 621 P.2d 957.



  Minority tolling not applicable.  72 H. 77, 806 P.2d 957.



  Plaintiff's lack of knowledge regarding a legal duty, the
breach of which may have caused plaintiff's injury, did not justify application
of "discovery rule"; plaintiff's failure to seek legal advice from an
attorney did not toll statute of limitations.  81 H. 391, 917 P.2d 718.



  Counties do not fall within the ambit of the State Tort
Liability Act; §46-72 is the statute of limitations applicable to actions
against the counties.  104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233.



  Where plaintiffs' claim did not accrue until the quantum of
the medical care they actually received exceeded the medical-rehabilitative
limit set forth in §431:10C-306(b)(2) (1993), and plaintiff apparently exceeded
that limit, this section afforded plaintiffs two years from the accrual of
their claim within which to file their lawsuit; as plaintiffs' claim had
accrued by the time they filed their complaint but not more than two years
prior, the complaint was timely under this section; thus, trial court properly
denied defendant's motion to dismiss.  113 H. 459, 153 P.3d 1144.



  Where §46-72 (2006) created a class of tort claimants,
injured by the conduct of a county, who were subject to a six-month statute of
limitations period for filing their complaint, and victims of injuries caused
by the State under this section had a two-year limitation period, and there was
no rational basis to support such disparate treatment, §46-72 (2006) was
unconstitutional under article I, §5 of the Hawaii constitution.  115 H. 1, 165
P.3d 247.



  Continuing-tort exception, which tolls running of statute of
limitations under this section, adopted; thus, where an actor continuously
diverts water over which he or she has direct control onto another's land, and
the diversion causes continuous and substantial damage to that person's
property and the actor knows of this damage, such an act may present evidence
of a continuous tort.  88 H. 241 (App.), 965 P.2d 783.