Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg'l Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2012–576,2012–576 |
| Citation | 82 A.3d 225,165 N.H. 694 |
| Parties | Steven P. DICHIARA, Jr. v. SANBORN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT & a. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
165 N.H. 694
82 A.3d 225
Steven P. DICHIARA, Jr.
v.
SANBORN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT & a.
No. 2012–576
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Argued: September 18, 2013
Opinion Issued: November 8, 2013
Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC, of Exeter (Christopher T. Hilson on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, P.C., of Concord (Samantha D. Elliot and Charles P. Bauer on the brief, and Ms. Elliot orally), for the defendants.
HICKS, J.
The plaintiff, Stephen P. Dichiara, Jr., appeals an order of the Superior Court (Wageling, J.) granting summary judgment
to the defendants, Sanborn Regional School District (School District) and Robert Ficker, on the basis of municipal immunity under RSA 507–B:2 (2010). We affirm.
The following facts are taken from the trial court's order. On December 2, 2008, the plaintiff attended tryouts for Sanborn Regional High School's basketball team. Ficker is the basketball team's coach. At tryouts, the plaintiff participated in a "loose ball" drill, which requires two players to rise from a seated position and attempt to gain control of a loose basketball. During the drill, the plaintiff and the other participating player collided, causing substantial injury to the plaintiff's arm.
The plaintiff filed an action in superior court, alleging negligence on the part of both defendants, and respondeat superior liability of the School District. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to statutory immunity under RSA chapter 507–B.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plain language of RSA 507–B:2 limits negligence claims against governmental units to those "arising out of ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of all motor vehicles, and all premises," and finding that the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of the operation of the premises. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court misinterpreted RSA 507–B:2 when it ruled that a municipality is only liable for negligence arising out of the municipality's ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle or premises. Essentially, the plaintiff maintains that, under RSA 507–B:2, a governmental unit is liable for bodily injuries "caused by its fault or by fault attributable to it," regardless of any connection to a motor vehicle or premises. RSA 507–B:2. The plaintiff does not challenge, however, the trial court's ruling that his injuries do not arise out of the defendants' ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of the premises.
In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Big League Entm't v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 482, 821 A.2d 1054 (2003). If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the grant of summary judgment. Id. We review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo. Id.
RSA chapter 507–B is entitled "BODILY INJURY ACTIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL UNITS." RSA 507–B:5 provides immunity to "governmental unit[s]" for "any action to recover for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage except as provided by this chapter or as is provided or may be provided by other statute." One such exception to RSA 507–B:5 is RSA 507–B:2, which states that "[a] governmental unit may be held liable for damages in an action to recover for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage caused by its fault or by fault attributable to it, arising out of ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of all motor vehicles, and all premises."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrelly v. City of Concord
...in RSA 507–B:2 (2010) does not apply, as the claim asserted therein has no nexus to cars or premises. See Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg'l Sch. Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696–97, 82 A.3d 225 (2013).The plaintiff argued that RSA 507–B:2 and :5 could only "provide immunity to municipalities for any intent......
-
Lahm v. Farrington
...and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District, ––– N.H. ––––, 82 A.3d 225, 227 (2013). If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is enti......
-
Huckins v. McSweeney
...oral argument, the plaintiff challenged our interpretation of RSA 507–B:2 and RSA 507–B:5 in Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District, 165 N.H. ––––, ––––, 82 A.3d 225, 228 (2013). In that case, we held that RSA 507–B:2 provides an exception to municipal immunity for negligence claims "......
-
Day v. Hurley
...Hampshire Supreme Court has construed RSA 507-B:5 as conferring immunity upon governmental units, see Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg'l Sch. Dist., ___ N.H. ___, ___, 82 A.3d 225, 227 (2013), and that immunity extends to present and formeremployees of governmental units who were "acting within the ......