The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on October 9, 2026, in the case of R.H. v. Hayashi, SCAP-23-0000277, which centers on a negligence claim involving a student with severe cognitive disabilities who was sexually abused while attending McKinley High School. The court's decision affects the plaintiff, R.H., who filed the lawsuit on behalf of her daughter, A.H., and raises important questions about the responsibilities of schools to protect vulnerable students.
The case arose when A.H., referred to as "Amy" in court documents, was sexually abused by male students at McKinley High School. Amy's mother, R.H., claimed that the school failed to protect her daughter despite being aware of her cognitive disabilities and the signs of abuse. The circuit court initially found the school negligent and awarded over $14 million in damages to the plaintiffs. However, the court also apportioned 30% of the fault to the male students, which became a focal point of the appeal.
The parties involved in this case include R.H. as the plaintiff and the State of Hawaii, its Department of Education, and various school employees as defendants. R.H. filed the negligence lawsuit after Amy suffered severe psychological injuries due to the abuse. The case was heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court after the circuit court's decision was challenged by both sides.
The circuit court's ruling was significant, as it concluded that the State had been negligent in protecting Amy from repeated sexual abuse. The court awarded damages for the severe psychological harm that Amy suffered, which included a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, the circuit court's decision to apportion 30% of the fault to the male students was contested by R.H., who argued that the State never requested such an apportionment.
The Hawaii Supreme Court, led by Justice McKenna, ruled that the circuit court's allocation of fault to the male students violated the plaintiffs' due process rights. The court stated, "Plaintiffs were deprived of notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether the boys were actually 'other tortfeasors' under HRS § 663-10.5." The court emphasized that the State did not meet its burden of proof to show that the male students were liable for the damages.
The court's ruling overturned the circuit court's decision to apportion fault to the male students and ordered the case to be sent back to the circuit court for an amended judgment. The court also affirmed the circuit court's findings related to the State's negligence and the damages awarded to the plaintiffs.
This ruling has significant implications for the future of negligence cases involving vulnerable individuals, particularly students with cognitive disabilities. It highlights the importance of due process in legal proceedings and reinforces the responsibility of schools to protect their students from harm. The decision may set a precedent for similar cases where schools are held accountable for their failure to act in the best interests of their students.
Looking ahead, the State of Hawaii may consider appealing the Supreme Court's decision. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the ruling could influence how schools approach their obligations to protect vulnerable students in the future.