Hays v. City and County of Honolulu

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, where plaintiffs affidavit demonstrated that he was aware of the City’s negligent act, his injury, and the causal connection between the act and the injury, discovery rule would not delay accrual of action
• stating that “[a] party must exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing a claim. If a plaintiff fails to exercise such diligence in a timely manner, the cause of action should be bar-red by the statute of limitations.” (Emphasis added.)
• listing the factual situations in which the discovery rule has been applied
• “[P]laintiffs lack of knowledge regarding a legal duty, the breach of which may have caused the plaintiff injury, will not justify application of the discovery rule.”
• “[Pjlaintiffs lack of knowledge regarding a legal duty, the breach of which may have caused the plaintiff injury, will not justify application of the discovery rule.”
• Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 limitations period begins to run at “the moment plaintiff discovers or should have discovered 3 the negligent act, the damage, and the causal connection between the former and the latter” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).