Hawaii
How Carter v. State of Oklahoma applies in Hawaii: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Hawaii recognizes the principle of governmental immunity with certain exceptions, especially for tort claims resulting from the negligent acts of public employees while acting within the scope of their employment. The state applies a modified standard regarding the duty of care owed by public entities to individuals.
Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 662-15, the state may be held liable for damages arising from the negligent acts or omissions of a state employee in the course of employment, except in cases of discretionary functions.
This case established that the state can be liable for negligent acts if those acts fall outside of discretionary function immunity.
The Hawaii Supreme Court held that governmental immunity does not protect entities from liability for the acts that are not discretionary in nature.
This case clarified the parameters under which governmental immunity can be bypassed, emphasizing the need for a direct connection between the state's action and the harm suffered.
Hawaii's tort law reflects a more lenient stance on waiving governmental immunity compared to federal law, which typically offers broad protections to the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In Hawaii, there is a greater emphasis on accountability for negligent state actions, particularly when actors are found to be engaged in non-discretionary functions.
Understanding the nuances of sovereign immunity and its exceptions is crucial for the Hawaii bar exam, especially regarding tort claims against the state.