Ronayne v. State
Citation | 137 N.H. 281,632 A.2d 1210 |
Decision Date | 18 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 91-421,91-421 |
Parties | Emmett RONAYNE and another v. The STATE of New Hampshire. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, of Concord (Peter G. Callaghan on the brief, and Steven M. Gordon orally), for plaintiffs.
John P. Arnold, Atty. Gen. (Jeffrey W. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief, and Michael J. Walls, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., orally), for State.
The plaintiffs, a firearms company and its owners and officers, appeal a decision of the Superior Court (Dickson, J.), dismissing those counts of the plaintiffs' action alleging that the State's negligent design, construction, and maintenance of one of its highways caused State and federal authorities to improperly initiate and pursue environmental enforcement actions against them. The plaintiffs argue that it was error for the superior court to hold that their suit against the State failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
In order to understand the nature of the trial court's decision, we must first examine the history of the plaintiffs' case and their pleadings as a whole. The plaintiff company K.W. Thompson Tool Company, Inc. (the company), is a manufacturer of specialty firearms. As part of its manufacturing process it handles and disposes of materials that are regulated under State and federal environmental laws. Beginning in 1980 the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (NHWSPCC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to ensure that the plaintiffs' waste water discharges were in compliance with State and federal environmental regulations. The plaintiffs hired Dufresne-Henry, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, and Edward Rushbrook, Jr., a professional engineer, (the consultants) to facilitate communication with the authorities and advise the plaintiffs on compliance requirements.
Prior to 1985, the EPA began a criminal investigation of the plaintiffs' operations, leading to their indictment for conspiracy and environmental compliance violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the EPA's investigation and the criminal indictment were the result of acts of the consultants. The plaintiffs also alleged that during the investigation the consultants negligently failed to detect gross miscalculations in the quantity of cyanide in the plaintiffs' waste water discharge and improperly gave proprietary information to the authorities. In 1985, pursuant to a plea agreement, the plaintiffs pled guilty to the misdemeanor charges, and the United States dismissed the felony charges with prejudice.
The plaintiffs brought suit in federal court seeking damages for injuries caused by the EPA investigation and federal indictment. Early in the proceedings, the federal court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the State and later dismissed their case entirely. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., Inc. v. U.S., 656 F.Supp. 1077 (D.N.H.1987).
While their case was proceeding in federal court, the plaintiffs brought this action in State court against the same defendants. The federal defendants removed the case to the federal court, where it was remanded to State court as to the non-federal defendants. Behre v. U.S., 659 F.Supp. 747 (D.N.H.1987). The State moved to dismiss counts I and II of the amended writ on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action and on the basis of sovereign immunity. On June 24, 1991, the superior court granted the motion, adopting the State's argument. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied on August 20, 1991, the trial court finding that the plaintiffs' language was largely conclusory in nature and that they failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Provencal v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 132 N.H. 742, 744-45, 571 A.2d 276, 278 (1990) (quotations and citations omitted). Although factual allegations are assumed to be true, a "court need not accept statements in the complaint which are merely conclusions of law." Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Baker, 130 N.H. 41, 45, 534 A.2d 706, 708 (1987) (quotations omitted).
The plaintiffs' writ contains six paragraphs that are central to this appeal. They read as follows:
"32. The State of New Hampshire, through its Department of Transportation, negligently designed, constructed and maintained its highways so that contaminated runoff water streams onto plaintiff's property, said runoff contains pollutants causing irreparable injury to plaintiff's surface and groundwaters.
33. The run-off contained pollutants and contaminants which were detected in wastewater and sludge analysis and attributed to K.W. Thompson when, in fact, the pollutants and contaminants originated in the State's highway run-off.
....
35. The State had a ministerial duty to properly design its highways so runoff water from said highways would not trespass onto Thompson's property.
36. The State breached its aforesaid duty by negligently designing the roadway adjacent to Thompson's property and failing to correct or modify the highway's design and, as a proximate cause thereof, runoff water containing cyanide and other contaminants trespassed upon Thompson's property, all in violation of RSA 541-B.
....
41. The State had and has a ministerial duty to the plaintiffs not to trespass upon Thompson's land.
42. The State breached and continues to breach its ministerial duty by knowingly or negligently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Irving v. U.S.
...suffered an injury; and (4) the defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Ronayne v. State, 137 N.H. 281, 284, 632 A.2d 1210, 1212 (1993). A. Duty The threshold inquiry in any negligence action is whether the defendant had a legal duty to defend the plaintiff......
-
Laramie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...that the plaintiff[s] suffered an injury, and that the defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the injury." Ronayne v. State, 137 N.H. 281, 284, 632 A.2d 1210, 1212 Sears argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict because the plaintiffs failed to introduce sufficient evidence o......
-
Laramie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...the plaintiff[s] suffered an injury, and that the defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the injury." Ronayne v. State , 137 N.H. 281, 284, 632 A.2d 1210, 1212 (1993). Sears argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict because the plaintiffs failed to introduce sufficient eviden......
-
Spengler v. Porter
...dismissal is proper, the trial court is required to test the facts in the petition against the applicable law. Ronayne v. State , 137 N.H. 281, 283, 632 A.2d 1210, 1211 (1993). "Although factual allegations are assumed to be true, a court need not accept statements in the complaint which ar......