A tort claim against the State shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after the claim accrues, except in the case of a medical tort claim when the limitation of action provisions set forth in sectionshall apply.
HRS § 662-4
L 1957, c 312, pt of §1; Supp, § 245A-4; HRS § 662-4; am L 1976, c 219, §16
Supersedes § 46-72 and Honolulu Charter § 12-111. 55 H. 216, 517 P.2d 51;56 Haw. 135,531 P.2d 648. Only this section of this chapter is applicable to the city and county of Honolulu.56 Haw. 241,534 P.2d 489. Claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known that an actionable wrong has been committed. 63 H. 117, 621 P.2d 957. Minority tolling not applicable.72 Haw. 77,806 P.2d 957. Plaintiff's lack of knowledge regarding a legal duty, the breach of which may have caused plaintiff's injury, did not justify application of "discovery rule"; plaintiff's failure to seek legal advice from an attorney did not toll statute of limitations.81 Haw. 391,917 P.2d 718. Counties do not fall within the ambit of the State Tort Liability Act; § 46-72 is the statute of limitations applicable to actions against the counties.104 Haw. 341,90 P.3d 233. Where plaintiffs' claim did not accrue until the quantum of the medical care they actually received exceeded the medical-rehabilitative limit set forth in § 431:10C-306(b)(2) (1993), and plaintiff apparently exceeded that limit, this section afforded plaintiffs two years from the accrual of their claim within which to file their lawsuit; as plaintiffs' claim had accrued by the time they filed their complaint but not more than two years prior, the complaint was timely under this section; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss. 113 H. 459, 153 P.3d 1144. Where § 46-72 (2006) created a class of tort claimants, injured by the conduct of a county, who were subject to a six-month statute of limitations period for filing their complaint, and victims of injuries caused by the State under this section had a two-year limitation period, and there was no rational basis to support such disparate treatment, § 46-72 (2006) was unconstitutional under article I, §5 of the Hawaii constitution.115 H. 1, 165 P.3d 247. Continuing-tort exception, which tolls running of statute of limitations under this section, adopted; thus, where an actor continuously diverts water over which he or she has direct control onto another's land, and the diversion causes continuous and substantial damage to that person's property and the actor knows of this damage, such an act may present evidence of a continuous tort. 88 H. 241 (App.), 965 P.2d 783.