Nin v. City of Honolulu

2 Citing cases

  1. Anderson v. State

    88 Haw. 241 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 21 times
    Alleging that the State wrongfully diverted stream onto plaintiff's property

    The Haw. Supreme Court adopted the continuing-tort exception to a statute of limitations in 1935, but has never revisited the issue. In Wong Nin v. City and County of Honolulu, 33 Haw. 379, rehearing denied, 33 Haw. 409 (1935), the Haw. Supreme Court held: There is a clear distinction recognized by the courts between what is called a permanent injury and one that is continuing. From the averments of the complaint in this case it would appear that the initial injury, namely, the destruction of or damage to plaintiff's growing crop of taro [by the continuous diversion of water from his land] constituted a permanent injury, respecting which a right of action accrued at the time it was sustained and the statute of limitations of course began to run from the date of the injury but the subsequent injuries caused by the continued diversion of water to the time plaintiff instituted his action were a continuing injury and so much of the damage as may have been sustained within the period of the statute is not barred. "A continuing diversion of a natural watercourse whereby a lower riparian owner is deprived of its use [is] a continuing injury not referable exclusively to the time when the diversion first occurred;

  2. Kam v. State of Haw. Bd. of Educ.

    Civil 21-00211 JAO-KJM (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2021)

    Although “the statute of limitations is tolled by a continuing tortious act, . . . ‘a recovery may be had for all damages accruing within the statutory period before the action, although not for damages accrued before that period.'” Anderson, 88 Hawai‘i at 250, 965 P.2d at 792 (quoting Wong Nin v. City & County of Honolulu, 33 Haw. 379, 386 (Haw. Terr. 1935), reh'g denied, 33 Haw. 409 (Haw. Terr. 1935)). Defendants assert that “the sole allegation of wrongful conduct . . . is the alleged assault and harassment of Plaintiff [sic] by the other student.”