AI-assisted research summary: This provision says the chapter does not remove existing liability, especially for wilful or malicious failures to warn or guard, charged recreational use, and injuries to house guests.
Nothing in this chapter limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists: (1) For wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure which the owner knowingly creates or perpetuates and for wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous activity which the owner knowingly pursues or perpetuates. (2) For injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land leased to the State or a political subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for such lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section. (3) For injuries suffered by a house guest while on the owner's premises, even though the injuries were incurred by the house guest while engaged in one or more of the activities designated in section [520-2]. [L 1969, c 186, §5] Law Journals and Reviews The Hawai`i Recreational Use Statute: A Practical Guide to Landowner Liability. 22 UH L. Rev. 237. Case Notes U.S. government immune from negligence liability under Hawaii recreational use statute (HRUS) for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while plaintiff was using a military recreational facility, where (1) because the government did not impose a "charge" or "fee" for plaintiff to enter upon and use the recreational facility, plaintiff's use of the government's property was "without charge" under the statute; (2) the fact that dock on which plaintiff was injured was closed to everyone except the instructors and students of the sailing course on day of plaintiff's injury did not strip the government of its HRUS immunity; (3) plaintiff argued that legislative history indicated that HRUS was not intended to immunize businesses from liability to their business invitees, there was no need to resort to statute's legislative history in search of an exception that was clearly not included; and (4) although plaintiff may have had professional as well as personal reasons for taking the sailing course, plaintiff's alleged "professional" motivation did not convert plaintiff into a "nonrecreational" user; plaintiff's subjective intent was, in the situation, immaterial. 181 F.3d 1064. Hotel owner not liable for swimmer's injuries since owner did not charge swimmer for access to beach and had no duty to warn swimmer of dangerous surf. 634 F. Supp. 226. False appearance of safety created by placement of inadequate or untrained lifeguards on beach, might result in potentially dangerous condition above and beyond natural danger created by ocean currents and surf; thus, government may be held liable to extent it created, and maliciously or wilfully failed to guard or warn against, the danger. 902 F. Supp. 1207. Given staffing, training, and equipping of lifeguards on beach on day in question, beach was not rendered more dangerous than it would be for swimmers in its natural untouched state, where training of lifeguards was adequate; thus, question whether United States knew that its actions had rendered beach more dangerous for swimmers was answered in the negative, since United States' knowledge was irrelevant; plaintiff also failed to prove wilfulness. 916 F. Supp. 1511. Where plaintiff alleged that the United States navy received a financial benefit from the Pearl Harbor bike path when its members commuted by bicycle on the bike path, reducing the need for parking spaces at Pearl Harbor naval station, and that the city of Honolulu's bicycle registration fee constituted a "charge" under Hawaii recreational use statute (HRUS), the United States did not charge plaintiff to enter the bike path and the "charge" exception to HRUS was not applicable. 180 F. Supp. 2d 1132.