Hawaii Elevator and Escalator Accident Lawyer

What Hawaii Law Asks Before an Elevator or Escalator Injury Becomes a Claim

Two legal theories usually frame these claims. The first is premises liability: the responsibility of the owner or the party in control of a property for conditions on it, including its elevators and escalators. The second is product liability: a claim that equipment, or a part of it, was defective in its design or manufacture and that the defect caused the injury. A single accident can involve one theory or both, and the site's page on the elevator accident lawyer topic explains how they fit together.

If you were hurt, the questions behind either theory are the ones that decide whether a claim exists at all. Did someone owe you a duty of care, meaning an obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm? Was that duty breached, and did the breach cause your injury? Being hurt does not by itself answer those questions, and an accident alone does not prove a defect, so the facts of what happened carry the weight.

In Hawaii, state law decides the time limits, the fault rule and the damages rules. A rule from California, New York or any other state does not carry over. This page does not state a Hawaii product-liability filing period or statute of repose; any such rule depends on Hawaii's current law. A person in this position may weigh which theory seems to fit, and a conversation with an attorney can help sort out whether the facts point to the building, the equipment or both.

Where the Accident Happened in Hawaii — and Why It Can Change the Rules

Elevators and escalators in Hawaii run in hotels and resorts, shopping centers, apartment and condominium buildings, office towers, airports, hospitals and government buildings. The accidents take a handful of forms. An elevator may make a sudden drop. A door may close on a person. A car may stop out of level with the floor, called misleveling, and leave a step that catches a foot. A person may be held inside a stopped car, called entrapment. On escalators, falls and caught clothing or limbs are common concerns. The site's page on escalator accidents describes those mechanisms in more detail.

The setting points to who owned and controlled the equipment. A hotel guest, a shopper, a condominium tenant and a hospital visitor may each face a different owner, management company and maintenance arrangement.

The biggest line the setting draws is between private and public property. An accident in a privately owned building generally falls under the two-year period discussed below. An accident in a facility of the State of Hawaii, or of a county, brings in separate statutes, including a notice rule for counties. If you were hurt, one early question to settle is who owns the building where it happened, since the answer decides which of the rules below may apply.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Injury

Often more than one party touched the equipment, and responsibility may be shared. The categories that often come up in Hawaii elevator and escalator cases include:

• the property owner, who owns the building and the equipment in it;
• a building manager or property management company that runs the building day to day;
• a maintenance contractor, meaning an outside company hired to service, repair and adjust the elevator or escalator;
• the manufacturer of the elevator or escalator, or the maker of a component such as a door system or brake;
• the State of Hawaii or a county, where the accident happened on government property.

For someone hurt, this list is a starting point, not a conclusion about any company. Whether a given owner, contractor or manufacturer bears responsibility for your injury turns on what happened, who controlled what, and the evidence. The site's page on elevator and escalator defendants explains how each can figure into a claim.

The stakes are practical. Hawaii's comparative-negligence statute, section 663-31 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, measures a plaintiff's negligence against "the aggregate negligence" of the persons against whom recovery is sought when there is more than one. So the number of parties named can affect how your own share is weighed. Timing is also affected, because a private company and a county do not fall under the same statutes. A person in this position may ask who serviced the equipment and who manages the building, and an attorney can help identify which parties may belong in a claim.

Filing Deadlines and the County Notice Step

Hawaii's general rule is in section 657-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It provides that actions for injury to persons "shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued, and not after, except as provided in section 657-13." The clock runs from when the cause of action accrued, and the case notes on that official page show that courts have looked closely at when a person knew enough for the period to begin.

For a child, section 657-13 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes applies. If the person entitled to sue was within the age of eighteen years when the cause of action accrued, the person may bring the action within the time limits "after the disability is removed or at any time while the disability exists." The section excepts actions against the sheriff, chief of police or other officers. Its case notes record a decision holding it not applicable to actions against the State.

Claims against the State follow section 662-4 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Under it, a tort claim against the State "shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after the claim accrues." The one exception it names is a medical tort claim, which follows section 657-7.3.

Counties are different. Under section 46-72 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, before a county is liable for injuries received in its public places or caused by the negligence of a county official or employee, the injured person or someone on their behalf must give notice "within two years after the injuries accrued." The notice goes to the individual the statute identifies or to the clerk of the county where the injuries occurred. The case notes describe a claim that failed because no written notice was given. The notice is a step of its own, separate from filing a lawsuit.

What is at stake is the claim itself: a missed period or notice can end it regardless of the injury. When the injury accrued, who the defendants are and the age of the injured person can each change which rule applies. A person in this position may write down the date of the accident and the owner of the facility, and an attorney can help work out which rule governs.

If You Were Partly at Fault: Hawaii's Comparative-Fault Rule

Many injured people worry that they did something wrong. Maybe they stepped into an elevator that had a sign on it, or were looking at a phone on an escalator. Section 663-31 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes addresses how an injured person's own negligence affects recovery. Subsection (a) provides:

"Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person or in the case of more than one person, the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made."

In plain words, contributory negligence is the injured person's own carelessness. Under this rule it does not end the claim as long as it was not greater than the defendants' combined negligence. Any damages are reduced by the injured person's share. Subsection (b) adds that if the injured person's share is greater, "the court will enter a judgment for the defendant."

The case notes on that page also record a decision that the "known or obvious danger" defense is inconsistent with the legislative intent behind Hawaii's comparative negligence statute.

How fault is divided is a question of fact. A warning sign, a door's timing, the maintenance history and what the person was doing all bear on it. A conversation with an attorney can cover how this rule may weigh the facts of an accident like yours.

Damages Hawaii Law May Allow — and the Pain-and-Suffering Limit

Damages are the losses the law may allow a person to recover, and in Hawaii they include pain and suffering. This page does not list every category. If you have medical costs or lost earnings, whether and how they count depends on Hawaii's current law and on what the evidence shows.

Hawaii limits one category. Section 663-8.7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that "Damages recoverable for pain and suffering as defined in section 663-8.5 shall be limited to a maximum award of $375,000; provided that this limitation shall not apply to tort actions enumerated in section 663-10.9(2)." The limit applies to pain and suffering, not to every kind of damages, and it has an exception for the actions listed in section 663-10.9(2). Whether an elevator or escalator case falls within that exception depends on the facts and on the text of that section. For someone with a lasting injury, whether the limit applies can shape how a claim is valued. Nothing here predicts what any case is worth.

A different statute limits a landowner's duty in one setting. Under section 520-4 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, except as section 520-5 provides, an owner of land "who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes" does not extend any assurance that the premises are safe. Nor does the owner confer the legal status of an invitee or licensee owed a duty of care. Most elevators and escalators sit in hotels, stores, offices and homes, not on land opened free for recreation. Whether this rule bears on a particular accident depends on the property, any charge and the purpose of the visit.

A person in this position may keep bills and records of time missed from work, and an attorney can help sort out which losses may be claimed and whether the limit is likely to matter.

Evidence That Often Matters in an Elevator or Escalator Injury Case

The records that usually matter fall into a few groups, and each speaks to a different part of a claim. For an injured person, what the records show, or fail to show, can decide whether the questions of duty, breach and cause can be answered.

Maintenance and inspection records show who serviced the equipment, when, and what was recorded. An inspection or maintenance record is not an allegation or a finding of negligence. A service entry or an inspection note is a record of what was written down. It is not, by itself, a finding that anyone was careless.

The incident report made with the property records when and where the event happened and who was there; it does not establish what caused the injury. Surveillance or security video can show the door, the landing or the escalator step at the moment of the accident. Witness names and contact details help reconstruct what happened. Medical records document the injury and its treatment. The physical condition of the equipment after the accident can matter to a product-liability theory as much as to premises liability.

Injured people and families often keep photos taken on the scene, receipts for care and the dates of each event, because the timing rules above turn on dates. National context appears on the site's page of elevator accident statistics.

If questions about records, reports or who has them are where things stand, you can request a case evaluation to talk through what happened with our attorney.

When a Family Has Lost Someone: Wrongful Death Under Hawaii Law

When an elevator or escalator accident in Hawaii ends a life, the family faces grief first and legal questions much later. Section 663-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governs the claim. When a death "is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person," the deceased's legal representative, or any of the persons listed in subsection (b) of the statute, "may maintain an action." The action is maintained on behalf of those listed persons, with exceptions the statute sets out.

The deadline runs from a different point than in an injury case. Under the statute, "Any action brought under this section shall be commenced within two years from the date of death of the injured person, except as otherwise provided." The case notes on section 657-13 record a decision that the minors' rule applies to this period.

The comparative-fault rule in section 663-31, described above, applies by its own words to negligence "resulting in death." Where the death followed an accident in a county facility, the case notes on section 46-72 record a decision that the county notice statute applies to claims arising from fatal injuries. A conversation with an attorney can help a family sort out who may bring the action and which rules apply to the loss.