Meier v. Town of Littleton, 2005-399.

• Decision Date: 03 November 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2005-399.,2005-399.
• Parties: Randall MEIER v. TOWN OF LITTLETON and another.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

910 A.2d 1243 Randall MEIER
v.
TOWN OF LITTLETON and another. No. 2005-399. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Argued: May 17, 2006. Opinion Issued: November 3, 2006.

Page 1244

Upton & Hatfield, LLP, of Concord (David P. Slawsky on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Donald E. Gardner and Donald L. Smith on the brief, and Mr. Gardner orally), for defendant Town of Littleton.

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Stephen G. LaBonte, attorney, on the brief and orally) for defendant State of New Hampshire.

BRODERICK, C.J.

The plaintiff, Randall Meier, appeals a ruling of the Superior Court (Burling, J.) dismissing his suit against the defendants, the Town of Littleton (town) and the State of New Hampshire (State), on grounds of res judicata. We reverse and remand.

The facts are not in dispute. Raymond P. Zolton, individually and as the executor of his wife's estate, sued all the parties in this case to recover for his personal injuries and for the death of his wife. The suit arose from a traffic accident in which Randall Meier struck the Zoltons with his truck while they were crossing Main Street in Littleton at a crosswalk that was allegedly improperly designed. Meier filed a brief statement asserting several defenses, including that: "[t]he carelessness,

Page 1245

recklessness and negligence of a person or persons other than [him were] the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' damages, if any."

The case settled before trial, and all parties stipulated that the docket be marked: "Neither party. No costs. No interest. No further action for the same cause." In exchange for the settlement, Zolton executed releases in favor of all the defendants, but neither the town nor the State requested Meier to execute a release in its favor.

Shortly after the docket markings were filed, Meier initiated this action against the town and the State, his former co-defendants. He claimed to have suffered damages — emotional harm and loss of income — as a result of the negligence of the town and the State in creating the deficient crosswalk the Zoltons were using at the time of the accident. He does not seek indemnification or contribution for the settlement he paid Zolton. The town, joined by the State, moved to dismiss Meier's suit on grounds of res judicata. The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal followed.

Meier argues that res judicata does not apply because the claims he raises in this case could only have been raised in the prior case (hereinafter...