Hawaii uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar: plaintiff can recover only if less than 51% at fault. Authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31.
The Hawaii pattern jury instructions ask jurors to determine: (1) was the defendant negligent? (2) was the plaintiff negligent? (3) was each party\'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the injury? (4) what percentage of fault, totaling 100%, do you assign to each party?
The court applies the modified comparative fault (51% bar) formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
Hawaii follows the modern American approach to allocating fault in personal-injury cases: rather than treating any plaintiff fault as a complete bar (the old contributory-negligence rule), the jury assigns percentages and the recovery is reduced , or, in some states, eliminated past a threshold.
Hawaii uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar: a plaintiff is barred only if their fault is GREATER than 50% (i.e., 51% or more). At exactly 50%, recovery is still allowed , reduced by half, but not eliminated.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in Hawaii both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a Hawaii plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule.
| Verdict | Plaintiff fault | Net recovery | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 | $10,000 |
| $250,000 | 25% | $187,500 | $62,500 |
| $500,000 | 49% | $255,000 | $245,000 |
| $500,000 | 50% | $250,000 | $250,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $0 | $1,000,000 |
Worked example: a Hawaii jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 10% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $90,000.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Hawaii jury, with 25% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Hawaii law (modified comparative fault (51% bar)), the final award is $187,500.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Hawaii jury, with 49% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Hawaii law (modified comparative fault (51% bar)), the final award is $255,000.
Worked example: a Hawaii jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 50% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $250,000.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Hawaii jury, with 60% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Hawaii law (modified comparative fault (51% bar)), the final award is $0.
Plaintiffs' attorneys in Hawaii screen cases with the comparative-fault rule front of mind. A case where the defense can credibly argue the plaintiff was 40%+ at fault gets a different intake decision in a 50%-bar state than in a pure-comparative state.
In contested Hawaii cases, the jury is the final arbiter of fault percentages. Pre-trial, lawyers run focus groups and mock juries to predict how an average Hawaii juror will allocate responsibility on the specific facts , those predictions then drive settlement leverage.
Hawaii comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 2 years from the date of injury (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
Hawaii applies modified comparative fault (51% bar). Hawaii uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar: plaintiff can recover only if less than 51% at fault.
Hawaii bars recovery when the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault.
Hawaii jurors are presented with a special verdict form asking them to assign fault percentages totaling 100% to each party (and any non-party at fault under joint-tortfeasor rules). The trial court then applies the comparative-fault formula to compute the final recovery.
Yes. Hawaii juries can apportion fault among multiple defendants (and sometimes non-party tortfeasors). The treatment of joint and several liability , whether each defendant is liable only for their share or for the entire judgment if others are insolvent , varies by state statute.
Hawaii courts vary on the "seat-belt defense." Some states allow evidence of non-use as a fault factor; others (by statute or judicial rule) exclude it. Plaintiffs\' counsel should consult current Hawaii appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , Hawaii\'s comparative-fault rule applies across negligence claims, including medical malpractice. Some states adjust the framework for medmal cases (e.g., reducing the plaintiff-fault relevance because patients rarely contribute to their own injuries in the traditional sense), but the basic rule applies unless the statute carves out an exception.
In modified comparative fault (51% bar) Hawaii, the bar threshold becomes the focal point of settlement: defendants negotiate harder near the threshold, plaintiffs accept reduced offers to avoid the bar.
Last verified against primary sources on 2026-05-16.