Legal Question in Personal Injury in Hawaii

Re: Is the State liable in shooting deaths?

This is mostly a question of U.S. Constitutional law rather than local Hawaii law (although Hawaii may have laws to make such suits more feasible). The answer is no.

States can pass whatever laws they want, as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution. If a state could be sued for having a particular law, then that means that the state is required not to have such a law and there is no basis for such a theory.

If cases like the one you propose were permitted, states would be sued all the time by people who feel that one law or another has injured them. Not satisfied with the amount of insurance coverage the other driver had after an accident? Sue the state for not requiring more! Don't like that tall building across the street from you? Sue the state for not limiting the heights of such buildings! Didn't get a job because you were late to the interview? Sue the state for not enacting faster speed limits! I realize that the claim you propose is more serious than these, but the principle is the same.

This is what constitutional lawyers call a "political question." It is a matter for the legislature to resolve on its own, and the courts will not intervene.

Then there is the legal principle of superseding cause. These deaths weren't caused by the state, they were caused by the actions of the gunman. Generally speaking, the intervening criminal actions of a third party will break the causal chain that might otherwise have made another defendant liable. I don't think there is much of a causal chain against the state here in the first place but, even if there was, the gunman's actions would almost surely break it.

There is also another causation problem -- the plaintiff in a suit like this would have to be able to prove that the victims would have lived had the laws been different. At a minimum, they would have to show that at least one of the victims would have been carrying a loaded gun but for these laws and that he/she would have been able to stop the assaillant. Unlikely, as I see it.

Further, the only people who even in theory might be able to bring such a suit would be the next-of-kin of the victims. Unless you are a close relative of the deceased (and I deeply sympathize if you are), then you could not bring such a suit even if it were a viable theory.

Then there is the centuries-old doctrine of soverign immunity, which says that states (and the federal government) can't be sued without their consent. You'd be surprised at just how many laws there are granting such consent (this is what I meant earlier when I said Hawaii might allow this claim), but I don't think the suit you propose would stand much of a chance.

There are even more reasons why this suit wouldn't fly, but I have limited space and I think I've made my points.