§291-2  [OLD] REPEALED.  L 1971, c 150, §3.

§291-2  Reckless driving of vehicle or riding of animals; penalty.  Whoever operates any vehicle or rides any animal recklessly in disregard of the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving of vehicle or reckless riding of an animal, as appropriate, and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. [PC 1869, c 26, §1; am L 1907, c 68, §1; RL 1925, §4388; RL 1935, §6280; am L 1941, c 116, §1; RL 1945, §11701; RL 1955, §311-1; HRS §291-1; am L 1976, c 149, §1; am L 1977, c 162, §1; ren L 1986, c 171, §1; am L 1998, c 287, §2]

Cross References

Wild cattle or other dangerous animals, see §142-97.

Case Notes

For instructions to jury, see 22 H. 786.  Instruction singling out “unavoidable accident”.  32 H. 728.

Complaint held insufficient though substantially in language of statute.  25 H. 584.

Death ensuing from the operation of a vehicle in violation of this section may constitute manslaughter.  29 H. 7.

Person convicted of heedless and reckless driving may not invoke double jeopardy when person is indicted for negligent homicide upon the death of the injured.  40 H. 331.

Charge in language of statute held insufficient.  41 H. 591.

Statute requires no more than ordinary negligence as a standard of guilt.  46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688.  Standard not affected by point system law.  46 H. 345, 379 P.2d 592.

Substantial evidence test applies to review of evidence; this test not altered by HRCrP.  46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688.

Section not limited to public property but applies to private property as well.  55 H. 505, 523 P.2d 315.

No obvious defect in an oral charge where the record demonstrates the charge tracks the statutory language, and the defendant clearly understood the accusation plus mounted a viable defense.  70 H. 314, 769 P.2d 1105.

Officer’s additional observations, considered in concert with the reasonable inferences arising from defendant’s screeching of tires, warranted an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant had, at a minimum, committed the offense of reckless driving of a vehicle, in  violation of this section; thus, officer’s investigative stop was within the parameters of permissible police conduct.  102 H. 228, 74 P.3d 980.

See 35 H. 324; 35 H. 396; 36 H. 537; 37 H. 591; 43 H. 54; 46 H. 315; 379 P.2d 594.


Cross References

Neighborhood electric vehicle requirements, see §291C-134.

§291C-101  Basic rule.  No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent and having regard to the actual and potential hazards and conditions then existing.  Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions. [L 1971, c 150, pt of §1; am L 1977, c 8, §1]

Case Notes

For conviction, there must be evidence that the speed was unreasonable under the actual and potential hazards and conditions then existing.  1 H. App. 403, 619 P.2d 1102.

§291C-102  Noncompliance with speed limit prohibited.  (a)  A person violates this section if the person drives:

(1)  A motor vehicle at a speed greater than the maximum speed limit other than provided in section 291C‑105; or

(2)  A motor vehicle at a speed less than the minimum speed limit,

where the maximum or minimum speed limit is established by county ordinance or by official signs placed by the director of transportation on highways under the director’s jurisdiction.

(b)  If the maximum speed limit is exceeded by more than ten miles per hour, a surcharge of $10 shall be imposed, in addition to any other penalties, and shall be deposited into the neurotrauma special fund. [L 1971, c 150, pt of §1; am L 1984, c 273, §8; gen ch 1985; am L 2002, c 160, §10; am L 2004, c 102, §2; am L 2006, c 129, §3]

Case Notes

Speeding law not criminal, therefore, not assimilated under the Assimilative Crimes Act.  900 F.2d 1346.

In prosecution under this section, prosecutor has burden of proving that speed limit was established in one of ways specified in this section.  57 H. 277, 554 P.2d 767.

Tuning fork used to calibrate radar gun was itself accurately calibrated.  70 H. 580, 779 P.2d 11.

Where trial court properly took judicial notice of the speed limit, as required by HRE rule 202(b), there was sufficient evidence to find motorist guilty of violating subsection (a).  95 H. 22, 18 P.3d 884.

Defendant was effectively put on notice of allegedly exceeding speed limit established by county ordinance.  9 H. App. 73, 823 P.2d 154.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *