Hawaii House Bill HB860

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25
• Report Pass: 2/11/25
• Refer: 2/11/25
• Report Pass: 2/27/25
• Engrossed: 2/27/25
• Refer: 3/4/25
• Report Pass: 3/21/25
• Refer: 3/21/25
• Report Pass: 4/4/25
• Refer: 4/17/25
• Report Pass: 4/25/25
• Enrolled: 5/1/25
• Chaptered: 6/6/25
• Passed: 6/6/25

Caption

Relating To Liability.

Summary

HB860 addresses so-called “roads in limbo,” streets whose ownership or jurisdiction is disputed between the State and a county. The bill authorizes the State or county to repair or maintain such streets in a county with a population of more than 200,000 but less than 500,000, which effectively targets Hawaii County. It also provides that doing so does not by itself establish ownership or jurisdiction over the street. The measure further limits liability by specifying that the State or county performing the repair or maintenance may be held liable only for acts or omissions arising from the work it actually performed on that street. Agencies may also post notices or signage clarifying that the work does not confer permanent jurisdiction or ownership. The law is set to take effect upon approval and sunset on July 1, 2030.

Impact

The bill amends chapter 663, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by creating a new liability provision for disputed streets. It changes the legal risk framework for state and county agencies by allowing them to perform maintenance on roads in dispute without that work being treated as an admission of ownership or jurisdiction, and without expanding liability beyond the specific maintenance performed. The practical effect is to encourage repair of neglected roads while preserving unresolved jurisdictional claims between the State and county.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support throughout the Senate and conference process, with unanimous or near-unanimous passage at each recorded committee stage and no recorded opposition votes. The bill’s findings and amendments suggest a broadly shared concern about deteriorating roads and agency reluctance to act because of liability uncertainty. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and pragmatic, focused on enabling maintenance rather than resolving the underlying ownership disputes.

Contention

The main point of contention is not whether the roads need maintenance, but whether agencies should be exposed to liability or treated as having accepted jurisdiction by doing the work. The bill addresses that concern by limiting liability and expressly stating that maintenance does not confer ownership or jurisdiction. Another potential issue is its narrow geographic application to counties with populations between 200,000 and 500,000, which appears designed to apply only to Hawaii County and may raise questions about why the remedy is not statewide.