Hawaii

Summary: Hawaii's dangerous dog laws define a "dangerous dog" based on behavior—specifically, any dog that, without provocation, causes a bite injury to a person or animal, explicitly excluding the dog's breed from consideration. Once a dog is officially declared dangerous following a complaint or officer observation, owners must comply with strict requirements, including microchipping, confinement in a locked escape-proof kennel, and mandatory muzzling and leashing (max four feet) whenever the dog is off the owner's property. Violations leading to injury carry escalating criminal penalties, ranging from misdemeanors with fines up to $2,000 for bodily injury to a Class C felony with up to five years imprisonment and mandatory euthanasia if the attack results in serious bodily injury or death to a person. Owners may seek rescission of the dangerous dog declaration after three years of compliance and completion of a certified behavior modification program, though this statute does not preclude separate civil liability for damages.

Summary: This Hawaii law from 2021 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in the State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that an animal test was conducted or contracted, by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2022, in a cruel manner, as identified in section 711-1108.5(1)(a). A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of $5,000 and an additional $1,000 for each day the violation continues. Certain exceptions to the testing ban exist under this act.

Summary: Whoever pastures, feeds, or shelters animals by virtue of a contract with or by the consent of the owner of the animals for a compensation agreed upon, has a lien on the animals for pasturing, feeding, or sheltering to secure payment thereof with costs.

Summary: This Hawaii law enacted in 2016 states that a court may permit the use of a facility dog in a judicial proceeding involving the testimony of a vulnerable witness (as defined) if the court determines that there is a compelling necessity for the use of a facility dog to facilitate the testimony of the vulnerable witness. Prior to use, the moving party must establish that the dog is credentialed; the dog is adequately insured; and that there is a relationship between the witness and the facility dog.

Summary: This Hawaii law states that no person shall hold in his or her lap or allow to be in the driver's immediate area any animal that interferes with the "driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle."

Summary: This is a short overview of Hawaii Great Ape law.

Summary: In Hawaii, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons are heavily regulated because of their dual status as both endangered/threatened species and restricted animals.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries.

Summary: Under this set of Hawaii laws, a person commits the misdemeanor offense of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, cruelly beats or starves any animal, deprives a pet animal of necessary sustenance, mutilates, poisons, or kills without need any animal other than insects, vermin, or other pests, or engages in animal fighting enterprises. Dog fighting constitutes a felony where the person owns or trains the dog to fight. The section has enhanced penalties for cruelty to guide or service animals or interference with their duties.

Summary: Hawaii is unique in how it treats liability for injuries incurred during equine activities. The relevant section provides that, in any civil action for injury, loss, damage, or death of an equine participant, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the injury, loss, damage, or death was not caused by the negligence of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or their employees or agents, if the injury, loss, damage, or death was caused solely by the inherent risk and unpredictable nature of the equine. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine or activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant.

Summary: This statute represents Hawaii's relevant dog bite law. Under the statute, an owner or harborer of an animal is strictly liable for personal or property damage to any person, regardless of the animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal.