P.2d 586, 589-90 (1974). See also Keliipuleole, 85 Hawai'i at 221-22, 941 P.2d at 304-05 (“[A] rational, sensible and practical interpretation of a statute is preferred to one which is unreasonable or impracticable, because the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). Even where a statute appears unambiguous, the court may deviate from a literal application of the language in order to avoid absurdity and give effect to the legislature’s intended purpose. State v. Ogata, 58 Haw. 514, 518, 572 P.2d 1222, 1225 (1977). See, e.g., State v. Stan’s Contracting, 111 Hawai'i 17, 27-28, 137 P.3d 331, 341-42 (2006) (<HOLDING>); State v. Haugen, 104 Hawai'i 71, 76-77, 85
holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results holding that a narrow interpretation of the word fraud in tolling statute would lead to absurd and unjust results holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result