§265A-1  County authority.  The several
councils or other governing bodies of the several political subdivisions of the
State shall have the general supervision, charge, and control of, and the duty
to maintain and repair, all county highways, bikeways, and sidewalks and shall
have the power to determine the terms under which irrigation or drainage
ditches, flumes, railroads, including plantation railroads and similar
structures, telephone, electric light and power lines and pipes and other
conduits may be maintained upon, under, over, and across the same, and the
councils or other governing bodies may make all regulations needful for the
public convenience and safety in all cases where permission has been or may be
granted to maintain the ditches, railroads, pipes, or other structures across,
under, over, and upon all county highways.  Any other law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the several counties by ordinance may take over, or receive by
dedication or otherwise, any private street or way or may improve, grade,
repair, or do any construction work upon private streets, ways, pavement, water
lines, street lighting systems, or sewer repairs. [L 1981, c 4, §2; am L 1988,
c 263, §9]



 



Cross References



 



  Driving upon bikeway, see §291C-123.



  Driving upon sidewalk, see §291C-148.



 



Attorney General Opinions



 



  County highways on Hawaiian Home Lands required to be
maintained by counties but title not transferred.  Att. Gen. Op. 86-15.



  State not required to share cost of maintaining public
highways.  Att. Gen. Op. 86-15.



 



Case Notes



 



  While the fact that the privately owned road was platted on a
subdivision map, that this section authorized counties to repair and maintain
private streets, and §46-16 authorized counties to regulate traffic on private
streets, and each of these factors was significant in determining which party
or parties had control of the private roadway, appellate court erred in
concluding as a matter of law that defendant property owners did not control
roadway and thus had no duty to maintain, repair, or warn of a dangerous
condition; the issue of control of the roadway was a question of fact for the
jury.  103 H. 385, 83 P.3d 100.