Construction Accident Complaint - New Hampshire

CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT COMPLAINT

Table of Contents

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Premises Liability
7. Count III — Construction Safety Negligence
8. Count IV — Product Liability
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. State-Specific Notes

Caption

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[________________________________] COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

CASE NO. [____]

Parties

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] resides at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, New Hampshire [ZIP CODE].

2. Defendant [GENERAL CONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [SUBCONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

4. Defendant [PROPERTY OWNER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE/INDIVIDUAL] at [ADDRESS].

5. Defendant [EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has jurisdiction under N.H. Const. Pt. 2, Art. 76-a and RSA 491:7.

7. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County under RSA 507:9.

Factual Allegations

8. The construction project at [PROJECT ADDRESS], [CITY], New Hampshire, was managed by Defendant General Contractor.

9. Plaintiff was employed by [EMPLOYER NAME] and performing work on [DATE OF ACCIDENT].

10. On [DATE OF ACCIDENT], Plaintiff was [DESCRIPTION OF WORK ACTIVITY] when [DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT].

11. Plaintiff sustained injuries including [DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES].

12. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against Plaintiff's employer (RSA 281-A:8). This action targets third parties.

Count I — Negligence

13. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

14. Defendants breached their duty of care by:

☐ Failing to provide fall protection
☐ Failing to maintain scaffolding and platforms
☐ Failing to secure hazardous areas
☐ Failing to provide PPE
☐ Failing to implement safety plans
☐ Failing to train workers
☐ Failing to conduct inspections
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Failing to coordinate subcontractor work
☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC NEGLIGENCE]

15. Defendants' negligence proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count II — Premises Liability

16. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

17. Defendant Property Owner breached duties owed to Plaintiff by:

☐ Failing to maintain safe premises
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Retaining control over site safety
☐ [OTHER BREACHES]

18. The premises condition proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count III — Construction Safety Negligence

19. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

20. Defendant [NAME] controlled [DESCRIBE WORK OR SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY]. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to use reasonable care in that work. Identify any applicable federal or New Hampshire safety standard only after confirming that it governed this Defendant and activity when the injury occurred.

21. Defendant's alleged safety failures included [SELECT ONLY FACTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE]:

☐ Unsafe scaffolding or platforms: [DESCRIBE]
☐ Missing fall protection: [DESCRIBE]
☐ Unsafe crane or derrick operation: [DESCRIBE]
☐ Unsafe excavation: [DESCRIBE]
☐ Other unsafe conduct: [DESCRIBE]

22. The conduct alleged above is part of Plaintiff's negligence claim. This count does not seek a separate OSHA penalty or damages remedy under the federal Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4).

Count IV — Product Liability

23. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

24. Defendant [MANUFACTURER / SELLER] designed, manufactured, and/or sold [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION] in the course of its business.

25. When sold, the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its reasonably foreseeable use because [DESCRIBE THE DEFECT AND DANGER].

26. The defect proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff brings this count under New Hampshire common-law strict products liability, as recognized in Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36 (1969).

Damages

27. Plaintiff has suffered:

a. Past and future medical expenses;
b. Past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
c. Physical pain and suffering;
d. Mental anguish and emotional distress;
e. Permanent disability;
f. Loss of enjoyment of life;
g. Loss of consortium (if applicable);
h. If separately authorized by current controlling common law, enhanced compensatory damages supported by the evidence; RSA 507:16 itself only prohibits punitive damages absent another statute;
i. All other compensatory damages.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues pursuant to N.H. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 20.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
[BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], New Hampshire [ZIP CODE]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: [__/__/____]

State-Specific Notes — New Hampshire

Workers' Compensation Exclusivity (RSA 281-A:8):

• Exclusive remedy against employer; third-party claims permitted
• Employer/insurer has subrogation rights

Comparative Fault (RSA 507:7-d):

• Plaintiff fault does not bar recovery when it is not greater than defendant fault, or aggregate defendant fault if recovery is allowed against more than one defendant
• Equality does not bar; otherwise an allowed award is reduced by the plaintiff's share

Statute of Limitations:

• Personal injury: THREE YEARS (RSA 508:4)
• Wrongful death: generally subject to RSA 508:4's three-year personal-action period; RSA 556:11 permits a new action within six years after death but expressly makes that period subject to RSA 508

Damage Caps:

• No cap on compensatory damages
• RSA 507:16 prohibits punitive damages unless another statute provides otherwise; it does not authorize enhanced compensatory damages, which require separately verified controlling authority and facts

Product Liability:

• RSA 507-D:1 defines product liability actions to include strict liability, negligence, warranty, and warning theories; it does not impose a negligence-only standard. New Hampshire recognizes common-law strict products liability under Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36 (1969).

OSHA:

• Confirm the applicable federal or state safety rule, covered employer, worksite, and activity before identifying a regulatory standard in this pleading.

Court System:

• Superior Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction

Sources and References:

• RSA 507:7-d — Comparative Fault
• RSA 281-A:8 — Workers' Comp