Promeneurs de chiens et gardiens d’animaux à Aiea, Hawaii

Comment embaucher un promeneur de chiens à Aiea

Traitez la rencontre initiale comme une entrevue. Demandez à voir une preuve d’assurance et toute certification en premiers soins pour animaux, demandez deux références de clients que vous pouvez réellement appeler, et confirmez comment les clés sont gérées (une entente écrite sur les clés est la norme professionnelle). Observez comment le promeneur accueille votre chien — un bon promeneur se met à sa hauteur et laisse le chien s’approcher. Convenez par écrit du service exact, du tarif, de la politique d’annulation et du plan d’urgence (quel vétérinaire, qui appeler).

Lois sur les chiens de l’État de Hawaii

Hawaii is a negligence state: HRS § 663-9 reads like strict liability, but the courts (Hubbell v. Iseke) held it only removes the scienter requirement — a bite victim still proves the owner or harborer failed to use reasonable care.

Ces règles à l’échelle de l’État s’appliquent partout au Hawaii ; les règles locales qui régissent la promenade au quotidien se trouvent dans l’onglet Règlements municipaux.

Dog bites: a negligence standard (HRS § 663-9 / § 663-9.1)

Despite statutory language that looks strict, Hawaii is a negligence state for dog bites. HRS § 663-9(a) makes the owner or harborer liable when the animal proximately causes injury regardless of lack of scienter of the animal's vicious or dangerous propensities. But in Hubbell v. Iseke the Hawaii appellate court held § 663-9 does not establish strict liability — it merely clarifies that a victim suing in negligence does not have to prove scienter. So the owner's prior knowledge of a dangerous propensity is not required; what the victim must show is that the owner or harborer's conduct was unreasonable.

Owner or harborer & the reasonable-care duty

The statute reaches the owner or harborer of the animal — language broad enough to capture whoever is keeping or handling the dog, not just the titled owner. The live question is whether that person used the ordinary care a reasonably prudent person would use to prevent the injury: duty, breach, causation, damages. § 663-9(b) adds that an owner or harborer of an animal known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious is absolutely liable. Defenses in § 663-9.1 cut off liability where the animal was teased, tormented, or abused without the owner's involvement, where the use of the animal was justified, or where the injured person entered premises posted with an adequate warning.

Leash, licensing & the rabies-free quarantine note

There is no statewide leash law — county ordinances govern. On O'ahu, the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu make it unlawful to let a dog become a stray (off-property and not under physical restraint by a leash of eight feet or less), and a violation is evidence of negligence (Hawaii has not adopted formal negligence per se). Dogs must be licensed with their county with current rabies vaccination. Notably, Hawaii is rabies-free and enforces strict animal import and quarantine rules (FAVN test plus vaccination for the 5-day-or-less or direct-release program, or up to 120-day quarantine) to keep that status.

Comparative fault & the time limit

Hawaii applies modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar (HRS § 663-31): a plaintiff whose fault is greater than the defendants' combined fault recovers nothing, and otherwise recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's share. The personal-injury statute of limitations is two years (HRS § 657-7), generally from the date of injury, subject to the discovery rule.