The Hawai`i Recreational Use Statute: A Practical Guide to Landowner Liability. 22 UH L. Rev. 237.

Plaintiff who suffered personal injuries while plaintiff was using a military recreational facility was not "charged" an "admission price or fee ... in return for ... permission to enter or go upon the [government's] land". 181 F.3d 1064.

Where plaintiff who was engaged in activity of boating argued that plaintiff was not engaging in a recreational activity while taking the sailing course, although plaintiff may have had professional as well as personal reasons for taking the course, plaintiff's alleged professional motivation did not convert plaintiff into a nonrecreational user; plaintiff's subjective intent was, in the situation, immaterial. 181 F.3d 1064.

No requirement that landowner open property to every person in the public in order to obtain protection under statute; defendant's duty to recreational user of property arose where defendant undertook and posted lifeguards at beach. 691 F. Supp. 256.

Where plaintiff alleged that the United States navy received a financial benefit from the Pearl Harbor bike path when its members commuted by bicycle on the bike path, reducing the need for parking spaces at Pearl Harbor naval station, and that the city of Honolulu's bicycle registration fee constituted a "charge" under Hawaii recreational use statute (HRUS), the United States did not charge plaintiff to enter the bike path and the "charge" exception to HRUS was not applicable. 180 F. Supp. 2d 1132.