Hawaii's new Castle law relating to civil liability

Status
Not open for further replies.

2aHawaii

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
53
Well Hawaii's Governor just signed two bills into law yesterday. One prevents seizure of firearms during an emergency and the other limits civil liability during a "castle" defense. I am looking for some internet legal advice on the latter. I know, I know, you get what you pay for.

Here is what the new law says:
Owner to felon; limited liability. (a) An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor.
(b) This section applies to the following felonies:
(1) Murder in the first or second degree;

(2) Attempted murder in the first or second degree;

(3) Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;

(4) Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;

(5) Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;

(6) Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and

(7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.

(c) The limitation on liability under this section arises:
(1) At the moment the perpetrator commences the felony to which this section applies; or

(2) At the moment the owner or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner believes that a commission of a felony under subsection (b) is imminent;

and extends to the moment the perpetrator is no longer upon the property.
(d) The limitation on liability under this section applies only when the perpetrator's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subsection (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death.
(e) This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise exists for:
(1) Wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or

(2) Wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or

(3) Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.

(f) Except with regard to paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(3), the limitation of liability under this section shall not be affected by the failure of the owner to warn the perpetrator of the felony that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.
(g) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.
(h) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense."

In your expert opinion, does this law limit protect a defendant in the case the perpetrator is killed? Here is a link to the bill in its entirety.
 
Sounds to me like I'd be covered too if staying at a hotel. Guess a kitchen knife will have to suffice though. Good news.
 
From the language provided, it sounds as though the owner will only have "castle" protection if the perp is charged with a crime and convicted. If the perp is not charged, or is charged and not convicted, question whether the castle doctrine applies.
 
I am definitely not an expert; but it looks like it has some interesting changes from typical Castle Doctrine laws in the other states.

1. Many castle doctrine laws state that if the owner is cleared of criminal charges, there is no civil liability. The Hawaii law says that the perpetrator must be convicted of certain criminal charges before there is no civil liability.

2. Weird language in 2(e)(3) - It looks like if someone broke into your house with the clear intent to murder you and you shot him without any verbal warning, you'd be free from civil liability. On the other hand, if someone breaks into your house with the clear intent to murder you and falls through your old rotted floor and breaks their neck, you are civilly liable still.

On a related note, I got a blurb about this from the NRA stating that Hawaii had a "duty to retreat" within your own home prior to this law? Is that correct
? If so, is there another law that changes that; because this law appears to only address civil liability.
 
Thanks for all your replies. Most specifically, my question relates to the following clause: "...provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor..." Does anyone know if injured would include killed in a legal definition?

@leadcounsel: Hawaii's ban is on "assault pistols" and "hi cap" mags that fit into a pistol. It does suck and maybe we can get that fixed next year. :)

@Bartholomew: Hawaii has no duty to retreat within the home, thankfully, but there is a duty to retreat outside the home. If you are interested in our criminal castle law, you can view it here.
 
Does anyone know if injured would include killed in a legal definition?

I would think it would; but I don't know Hawaii statutes or case law on that.

If you are interested in our criminal castle law, you can view it here.

Thanks for the link, it answered my questions. Hawaii certainly takes some interesting statutory approaches. Makes me glad I don't have to try and remember the various exceptions to the statute (and exceptions to the exceptions) in a deadly force situation.
 
I just read about this today myself and am happy that Hawaii finally has some laws that help us gun owners who live here. Still have a ways to go but at least here unlike Chicago where I was born allows us to have handguns. I wonder if Hawaii gun owners will ever get to carry concealed. Aw heck at this point even open carry would be nice!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top