§291-12  Inattention to driving. Whoever operates any vehicle without due care or in a manner as to cause acollision with, or injury or damage to, as the case may be, any person, vehicleor other property shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more thanthirty days, or both, and may be subject to a surcharge of up to $100 whichshall be deposited into the trauma system special fund. [L 1971, c 150, §2; amL 1977, c 180, §1; am L 1998, c 287, §4; am L 2008, c 231, §6]

 

Case Notes

 

  Section not limited to public property but applies to privateproperty as well.  55 H. 505, 523 P.2d 315.

  Evidence of failure to observe statutory requirements inchanging lanes and in making left turn held under the circumstances to besufficient to support finding of negligence in violation of section.  57 H.533, 560 P.2d 114.

  In order to convict under this section, the conduct andresult elements all must be proven, along with the requisite state of mind; the"alternative means" theory of this section expressed by theintermediate court of appeals in Momoki rejected.  118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186.

  In order to convict under this section, the prosecution hasthe burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant (1) operated avehicle "without due care or in a manner," (conduct) (2) "as tocause a collision with, or injury or damage to, as the case may be, any person,vehicle or other property" (result of conduct), and that defendant did so(3) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.  118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186.

  The term "collision", in this section, should carryits common meaning, and not the more expansive technical definitions used insome contexts; under such a construction, "collision" generallyrefers to "an automobile coming in contact with some other vehicle or someperpendicular object obstructing the course of its progress"; wheredefendant's front truck wheels were stuck hanging one feet over the parking lotedge, defendant's vehicle was not involved in a collision as a matter of lawand defendant thus could not be convicted under this section.  118 H. 1, 185P.3d 186.

  To the extent that the "without due care"designation fails to map the state of mind requirement described as"negligently" in the Hawaii penal code, no state of mind is clearlyspecified by this section; thus, the default states of mind of"intentionally", "knowingly", or "recklessly",would be required as to each element of this section.  118 H. 1, 185 P.3d 186.