Premises Liability Complaint - New Hampshire

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — NEW HAMPSHIRE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care
6. First Cause of Action — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Second Cause of Action — Failure to Warn
8. Third Cause of Action — Negligent Maintenance
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Verification
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[COUNTY NAME], SS.

SUPERIOR COURT

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [CITY/TOWN], [COUNTY] County, New Hampshire.

2. Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant") is [an individual residing in / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY/TOWN], [COUNTY] County, New Hampshire (the "Premises"). Defendant may be served with process at [ADDRESS FOR SERVICE].

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to RSA 491:7.

5. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to RSA 507:9 because [Plaintiff / Defendant] is a New Hampshire inhabitant and resides in this county.

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY/TOWN], New Hampshire [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was [lawfully present on / entering / exiting] the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge of the condition through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The condition existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it.

☐ The condition was part of a recurring hazard known to Defendant.

10. As a direct result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained serious injuries.

5. DUTY OF CARE

11. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was lawfully on the Premises as [an invitee / a licensee / a social guest].

12. Defendant, as the premises owner, owed Plaintiff a duty to use ordinary care to keep the Premises in a reasonably safe condition, to warn entrants of dangerous conditions, and to take reasonable precautions to protect them against foreseeable dangers arising out of the arrangements or use of the Premises. Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95, 99 (2009).

13. Defendant's duty of care depended on whether Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Partin v. Great A & P Tea Co., 102 N.H. 62 (1959).

6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant breached the duty of care by [failing to maintain / failing to inspect / failing to repair / failing to warn].

16. Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

17. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

18. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.

19. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff.

20. Defendant's failure to warn was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

22. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises.

23. Defendant negligently failed to perform required maintenance, specifically [DESCRIBE].

24. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

9. DAMAGES

25. As a proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of wages and earning capacity.

c. Physical Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Mental Anguish: Past and future mental anguish and emotional distress.

e. Physical Impairment: Past and future physical impairment and disability.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Past and future loss of enjoyment of life.

h. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Loss of consortium.]

10. JURY DEMAND

26. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
3. Costs of suit;
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], NH Bar No. [NUMBER]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY/TOWN], New Hampshire [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Facsimile: [FAX]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

12. VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

I, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], being duly sworn, state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

________________________________________
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on [DATE].

________________________________________
Notary Public / Justice of the Peace
My Commission Expires: [DATE]

13. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

Duty of Reasonable Care. New Hampshire imposes on premises owners a duty of ordinary care to keep premises in reasonably safe condition and to warn of dangerous conditions. Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95 (2009). The traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories inform the duty analysis.

Comparative Fault. Under RSA 507:7-d, recovery is barred when plaintiff fault is greater than defendant fault, or aggregate defendant fault if recovery is allowed against more than one defendant. Allowed damages are reduced by plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Three-Year Statute of Limitations. RSA 508:4 generally measures three years from the act or omission complained of. If the injury and its causal relationship were not and could not reasonably have been discovered then, the statute uses actual or reasonably required discovery of both. Confirm claim classification, accrual facts, tolling, and any shorter public-entity rule before calculating a date.

No Storm-in-Progress Doctrine. New Hampshire has not adopted the "storm in progress" defense. Premises owners are held to a standard of reasonable care under all circumstances, including during and after storms. Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 144 N.H. 571 (1999).

Government Claims. RSA 541-B:14 requires written notice to the state agency within 180 days, and RSA 507-B:7 requires registered-mail notice to the governmental unit's clerk within 60 days, subject to each statute's stated prejudice protection. Give notice promptly; do not assume late notice is automatically fatal or harmless.

Mode of Operation Rule. New Hampshire recognizes the mode-of-operation rule for self-service businesses, which may relieve the plaintiff of proving specific notice of a hazard.

Recreational Use Statute. RSA 212:34 limits landowner liability for outdoor recreational activities on land open to the public without charge.

14. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• RSA 507:7-d — Comparative fault
• RSA 508:4 — Three-year statute of limitations
• RSA 507-B:1 et seq. — Municipal liability
• RSA 541-B:14 — State claims
• RSA 212:34 — Recreational use immunity
• Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95 (2009)
• Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 144 N.H. 571 (1999)
• Partin v. Great A & P Tea Co., 102 N.H. 62 (1959)