Premises Liability Complaint

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — HAWAII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Premises
7. Count III — Failure to Warn
8. Damages
9. Jury Demand
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Hawaii Practice Notes

CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [________________________________] CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

[________________________________],

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant(s).

COMPLAINT FOR PREMISES LIABILITY

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, and for this Complaint against Defendant(s), [________________________________] ("Defendant"), states and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is an individual residing at [________________________________], Hawaii.

2. Defendant [________________________________] is [an individual/a corporation/a limited liability company/a partnership] [organized under the laws of [________________________________]] with [a principal place of business/residence] at [________________________________], Hawaii.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was the [owner/operator/lessee/manager] of the premises located at [________________________________], Hawaii (the "Premises").

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to HRS § 603-21.5, as this matter involves a civil action seeking damages in excess of $40,000.

5. Venue is proper in the [________________________________] Circuit because [the injury occurred in this circuit / the Defendant resides in this circuit / the Defendant conducts business in this circuit].

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Premises and Defendant's Control

6. At all times relevant, Defendant [owned/operated/controlled/maintained] the Premises located at [________________________________], Hawaii.

7. The Premises were used as [a retail store/restaurant/hotel/resort/apartment complex/parking lot/other: ________________________________].

8. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff entered the Premises for the purpose of [________________________________].

The Dangerous Condition

9. At the time of Plaintiff's entry, a dangerous condition existed on the Premises, specifically: [________________________________].

10. The dangerous condition was caused by [________________________________] and had existed for [________________________________] prior to Plaintiff's injury.

Notice to Defendant

11. Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition in that [________________________________].

12. In the alternative, Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because the hazard existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered and remedied it. See Corbett v. Ass'n of Apt Owners of Wailua Bayview Apts. (1989).

13. Despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, Defendant failed to correct, repair, or warn Plaintiff of the hazard.

The Incident

14. On or about [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m./p.m.], Plaintiff [slipped/tripped/fell/was struck by/other: ________________________________] due to the dangerous condition described above.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

17. Under Hawaii's unitary standard of care, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition for all anticipated users. See Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134 (1969).

18. Specifically, Defendant's duty included:

• ☐ Maintaining the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;
• ☐ Conducting reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions;
• ☐ Taking reasonable steps to remedy known or discoverable hazards;
• ☐ Warning of dangerous conditions that could not be reasonably eliminated.

19. Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

20. Defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

21. But for Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff would not have been injured.

COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

23. Defendant had a duty to maintain the Premises in a safe and reasonable condition, including but not limited to:

• ☐ Conducting regular inspections of the Premises;
• ☐ Repairing known hazards in a timely manner;
• ☐ Implementing adequate safety procedures and protocols;
• ☐ Complying with all applicable building codes and safety regulations.

24. Defendant negligently failed to maintain the Premises by [________________________________].

25. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a direct and proximate cause of the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

27. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

28. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff, or alternatively, even if the condition was known or obvious, Defendant should have anticipated that harm would occur despite the apparent nature of the danger. See Steigman v. Outrigger Enterprises, Inc. (2011).

29. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition by failing to:

• ☐ Post warning signs or notices;
• ☐ Erect barriers or safety devices;
• ☐ Verbally warn Plaintiff of the hazard;
• ☐ Take other reasonable steps to alert visitors of the danger.

30. Defendant's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future medical bills in the amount of $[________________________________];

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity in the amount of $[________________________________];

c. Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and suffering, both past and future (subject to statutory cap under HRS § 663-8.7);

d. Mental Anguish: Emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish;

e. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Diminished quality of life and inability to perform daily activities;

f. Permanent Impairment: Permanent disability and/or disfigurement;

g. Other Damages: [________________________________].

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to the Hawaii Constitution, Article I, § 13, and Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and award:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. Noneconomic damages to the maximum extent permitted under HRS § 663-8.7;

c. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

d. Costs of this action, including court costs and filing fees;

e. Attorney's fees as permitted by law;

f. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Hawaii Bar No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

HAWAII PRACTICE NOTES

Unitary Standard of Care

Hawaii has abolished the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy. Under Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134 (1969), a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all anticipated users of the land. The entrant's status and purpose of the visit remain relevant factors in the reasonableness analysis.

Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Bar)

Under HRS § 663-31, Hawaii follows a modified comparative negligence system. A plaintiff's recovery is barred if their negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant(s). If not barred, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Steigman v. Outrigger Enterprises, Inc. (2011), the open and obvious nature of a danger is not an automatic bar to recovery. It is a factor in the comparative negligence analysis rather than a complete defense.

Noneconomic Damages Cap

HRS § 663-8.7 caps noneconomic damages (specifically pain and suffering) at $375,000. Verify the current amount. Economic damages and punitive damages are not subject to this cap.

Government Property Claims

Claims against State and County entities are subject to specific notice requirements and procedures. Verify the applicable provisions for the specific governmental entity.

Statute of Limitations

Two (2) years from the date the cause of action accrued (HRS § 657-7).

This template is provided by ezel.ai for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently; always verify current statutes and consult with a licensed Hawaii attorney before filing.