Yin v. Aguiar., 463 P.3d 911

Jijun Yin leased 50 acres for farming; the lease required the lessee to “keep cattle out of [their] crops.”
Paradise Homes/Aguiars pastured cattle adjacent to Yin’s land; incursions in 2009–2011 allegedly destroyed >13 acres of sweet potatoes and caused ~$190,000 in damages.
Yin sued the Aguiars for statutory strict liability for livestock trespass; defendants asserted multiple defenses and moved for summary judgment.
Defendants argued HRS §§ 142-63 and 142-64 did not apply because Yin’s fence was neither a “properly fenced” (lawful) fence nor wholly “unfenced;” they also relied on the lease’s exculpatory clause.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants; the ICA affirmed based on plain statutory text and that Yin accepted the fencing duty by contract.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court reversed: it held the statutes impose liability for trespassing livestock on cultivated land regardless of fence quality and that the lease clause attempting to absolve livestock owners conflicted with statute and public policy, vacating the lower judgments and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HRS §§ 142-63/142-64 impose liability on livestock owners for trespass damage regardless of whether the victim’s fence meets the statutory “lawful”/“properly fenced” standard	Yin: statutes and legislative history show livestock owners are liable for full proven damages on any cultivated land (fenced or unfenced)	Aguiar: statutes apply only if land is “properly fenced” or wholly “unfenced”; not-properly fenced land falls into a gap relieving livestock owners	Court: statutes ambiguous on plain reading; legislative history and purpose (1975 amendments) show legislature intended liability for all cultivated land regardless of fence quality — livestock owners liable
Whether the lease provision making tenant fully responsible for keeping cattle off crops is enforceable	Yin: clause is void as against public policy and statute because it attempts to absolve livestock owners of statutorily imposed liability	Aguiar: landlords/parties may contractually allocate fence duties; statutes don’t prohibit lease terms assigning fence duty to tenant	Court: exculpatory clause conflicts with HRS §§ 142-63/142-64 and public policy; clause unenforceable, cannot relieve livestock owners of statutory liability

Louie v. Hawaii Gov’t Emps. Ass’n, 133 Hawai‘i 385, 328 P.3d 394 (Haw. 2014) (statutory interpretation requires giving effect to legislative intent)
Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai‘i 48, 109 P.3d 689 (Haw. 2005) (summary judgment review de novo)
Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawai‘i 116, 19 P.3d 699 (Haw. 2001) (exculpatory clauses disfavored and evaluated against public policy)
Bowers v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 88 Hawai‘i 274, 965 P.2d 1274 (Haw. 1998) (contractual clauses cannot shift statutorily imposed obligations)
Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Hawai‘i 254, 141 P.3d 427 (Haw. 2006) (general principle that parties are bound by contracts though exculpatory clauses receive close scrutiny)