§46-72  Liability for injuries or damages;notice.  Before the county shall be liable for damages to any person forinjuries to person or property received upon any of the streets, avenues,alleys, sidewalks, or other public places of the county, or on account of anynegligence of any official or employee of the county, the person injured, orthe owner or person entitled to the possession, occupation, or use of theproperty injured, or someone on the person's behalf, within two years after theinjuries accrued shall give the individual identified in the respectivecounty's charter, or if none is specified, the chairperson of the council ofthe county or the clerk of the county in which the injuries occurred, notice inwriting of the injuries and the specific damages resulting, stating fully when,where, and how the injuries or damage occurred, the extent of the injuries ordamages, and the amount claimed. [L 1943, c 181, §1; RL 1945, §6013; RL 1955,§138-21; HRS §46-72; am L 1998, c 124, §1; am L 2007, c 152, §8]

 

Cross References

 

  Use, repair, and maintenance of public roads in ownershipdispute, see §46-15.9.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  The Requirement for Notice of Claim Against the City andCounty of Honolulu:  Does it Apply to a Claim for Contribution Under theUniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act?  3 HBJ, May 1965, at 4.

 

Case Notes

 

  Presentation of claim against county within six month limitwas not condition precedent to maintaining third party action against countyfor contribution under Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act.  283 F. Supp. 854.

  This is a statute of limitations and is to be narrowlyconstrued.  283 F. Supp. 854.

  Plaintiff's [chapters] 368 and 378 state law claims againstthe county were time-barred under this section, where plaintiff never providedthe county written notice of plaintiff's claim.  504 F. Supp. 2d 969.

  Sufficiency of notice of claim discussed.  54 H. 210, 505P.2d 1182.

  Notice of claim requirement is inconsistent with §662-4 andis invalid.  55 H. 216, 517 P.2d 51; 56 H. 135, 531 P.2d 648.

  Because the city is neither the sovereign nor the surrogateor alter ego of the sovereign, it is not entitled to sovereign immunity; thus,it is subject to the State's tort laws in the same manner as any privatetortfeasor; as §657-13 governs classes of "personal" tort actions,such as "damage to persons or property", the infancy tollingprovision of §657-13(1) applies directly to personal injury actions against thecity; child was thus able to bring action, but as §657-13(1) did not providefor tolling of parents' derivative actions and they did not timely comply withthis section, their individual claims were barred.  104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233.

  Counties do not fall within the ambit of the State TortLiability Act, chapter 662; this section is the statute of limitationsapplicable to actions against the counties.  104 H. 341, 90 P.3d 233.

  The limitation period set forth in this section is not tolledpending the appointment of a personal representative.  115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247.

  The statute of limitations applicable to the estate's claimsarising out of decedent's injuries and the plaintiff's own derivative wrongfuldeath damages was this section; this section applies to claims against countiesarising from fatal injuries.  115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247.

  Where this section (2006) created a class of tort claimants,injured by the conduct of a county, who were subject to a six-month statute oflimitations period for filing their complaint, and victims of injuries causedby the State under §662-4 had a two-year limitation period, and there was norational basis to support such disparate treatment, this section (2006) wasunconstitutional under article I, §5 of the Hawaii constitution.  115 H. 1, 165P.3d 247.