Spinner
Spinner
Spinner
Spinner
Spinner
Spinner

New Hampshire has a wealth of beautiful lakes and coastline, making the state a popular location for boaters and tourists. Boating is a fun and exciting leisure activity, but without proper education and training, the activity can have disastrous consequences. New Hampshire boating accidents can result in injuries to the boat’s drivers, passengers, and those enjoying water sports. Negligent New Hampshire boat drivers may face severe criminal and civil consequences, including jail time, fines, and personal injury claims.

New Hampshire boaters must have a state boating license or certificate; however, if they do not, they must complete a classroom course and pass a supervised exam. Additionally, New Hampshire law prohibits boaters from operating their boats under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If a boater’s blood alcohol level (BAC) is .08 or higher, they may face a criminal Boating Under the Influence (BUI) charge in addition to civil liability for injuries they caused. Boating injuries may be the result of other boating accidents, as well. Some common situations that may result in injuries are when a boat hits a wave, another boat’s wake, or a submerged object. The boat itself may be dangerous if it has defective equipment or slippery surfaces. Further, individuals may suffer more severe injuries when a boat does not have adequate safety equipment on board.

A recent news report illustrates the deadly consequences a boating accident can have. Recently, two New Hampshire men died in a boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee. New Hampshire emergency personnel arrived at the scene after receiving reports that a boat was adrift. Reports indicate that there was a female passenger aboard the boat suffering from severe injuries, and the boat’s operator, who was pronounced dead at the scene. While responding to the scene, helicopters and divers found a deceased man on a submerged boat. Witnesses indicated that two vessels collided with each other. Details are few, and police report that they are still investigating the cause of the accident and determining which boats were involved.

According to a recent news report, the auto insurance company for the trucking company involved in the June New Hampshire motorcycle crash that killed seven former marines filed a claim asking the court to relieve them of their responsibility. The request comes several months after the tragic accident in which a truck driver, under the influence of drugs, collided into the motorcyclists. Following the accident, the insurance company received 15 claims from the relatives and surviving victims of the collision. In response, the insurance company filed a lawsuit claiming that they were unable to determine how much to allocate to each party and therefore requested the court to determine the payouts. Additionally, the insurance company asked that the court release them from their duty to defend the trucking company.

New Hampshire law does not require motorists to obtain car insurance. However, under the state’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Requirements, motorists must pay for losses that they cause in an accident. Although, in most cases, New Hampshire commercial truck drivers do not need to have car insurance, federal law requires that trucking companies who operate across state lines must have at least $750,000 in liability insurance. This federal law was designed to protect those who are involved in a crash with a truck driver, because injuries and damages in these accidents are typically severe.

Commercial insurance covers things such as property damage that the vehicle caused and medical and burial expenses that a victim or their loved one incurred. Injured New Hampshire motorists may face challenges with covering their costs because the state does not mandate insurance coverage. In these instances, victims may have to cover their expenses by filing a claim with their insurance company or filing a personal injury lawsuit against the other party.

Recently the state’s high court issued an opinion stemming from a New Hampshire slip and fall accident occurring in the plaintiff’s employer’s parking lot. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff slipped on ice in an employee parking lot as she exited her vehicle before beginning her shift as a nurse at the hospital. As a result of her slip and fall, she suffered severe injuries requiring surgery. Her employer, a hospital, was immune from liability, so the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the company that the hospital hired to clear snow and ice.

The plaintiff alleged that the snow company breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition because they failed to clear and salt the parking lot. The plaintiff cited the contract between the snow removal company and the hospital. The contract provided that the company would clear the lots as frequently as possible, before each shift, and salt before and after a storm. The company moved for dismissal, arguing that they did not owe the woman a duty of care. The plaintiff appealed, contending, amongst other issues, that a duty exists under the doctrine of foreseeability and third-party liability.

Under New Hampshire law, plaintiffs intending to hold an at-fault party responsible for their injuries must meet the legal elements of a negligence claim. Generally, plaintiffs must establish that the at-fault party owed them a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach resulted in foreseeable, proximate injuries and damages. In many cases, the foreseeability prong is easy to establish; however, challenges occur when the defendant argues that the victim’s injuries were not foreseeable or the party themselves were not a foreseeable plaintiff. New Hampshire law provides that parties owe a duty to those “foreseeably endangered by their conduct, whose likelihood and magnitude make the conduct unreasonably dangerous.” In this case, the court found that the snowplow services did not amount to unreasonably dangerous conduct, and the negligent activity did not outsize the harm sufficient to create a duty.

Pharmacists are medical professionals who, like doctors and nurses, owe patients a duty to provide an acceptable level of medical care. While medical professionals are not expected to be error-proof in their judgment, it is expected that they do not make careless mistakes, which can have a significant impact on a patient’s life. When a pharmacist incorrectly fills a prescription, and a patient is harmed as a result, the injured patient may be able to pursue a New Hampshire medical malpractice case against the pharmacist, as well as the pharmacy that employs them.

Recently, a New Hampshire man filed a claim against a hospital pharmacy that he claims was responsible for his ongoing kidney stones. According to a local news report, the man had a procedure to remove kidney stones at Concord Hospital Center. After the hospital discharged the patient, he was issued a prescription for “Potassium Citrate ER 10 MEQ (1080mg) CR-TABS” with instructions to take two of the pills per day.

The hospital printed out the prescription, and the patient took it to a satellite location. Despite being provided with the correct prescription, the pharmacist on duty filled the patient’s prescription with “Potassium CL 10 MEQ 120.” It is disputed as to how the prescription was transferred, but the patient claims the hospital pharmacy called in the prescription to a local Rite-Aid. The hospital pharmacy admits that it incorrectly filled the prescription, but denies that it transferred the prescription to the Rite-Aid pharmacy. Regardless, the prescription ended up at a Rite-Aid, which filled the prescription seven times.

According to a recent news report, the driver who killed seven in a New Hampshire crash in June will face 23 criminal charges. The driver admitted to being under the influence of drugs when he crossed a double yellow line and slammed into seven motorcyclists, fatally injuring them. Prosecutors indicted the driver on seven counts of manslaughter, negligent homicide, and one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated and reckless conduct. In addition to the seven motorcyclists that the driver killed, he also seriously injured one other motorcyclist and placed 14 people in danger of bodily injury. The driver may face civil charges from the family members of the motorcyclists, along with a potential 30-year prison sentence.

According to statistics released by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire motor vehicle crashes are the most common cause of severe bodily and fatal injuries in the state. In many cases, these accidents are the result of distracted or inattentive driving, speeding, or mechanical issues. However, many fatalities are the result of a driver driving while impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The injuries in these cases are typically the most severe and have the most devastating impact on the victim and their family.

Under New Hampshire law, injury victims who want to recover against another driver must establish that the driver was negligent and that negligence caused the victim’s injuries and damages. However, plaintiffs may be able to recover under the theory of negligence per se when the other party caused the accident because they were under the influence or impaired. Negligence per se applies when a party violates a law and causes injuries that the law was designed to prevent. When negligence per se applies, the defendant is determined to be legally negligent and the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant’s acts caused their injuries. For example, in this case, the driver admitted that the accident occurred while he was driving under the influence; therefore, the families may be able to recover damages based on negligence per se.

When injuries happen as a result of a New Hampshire car accident, there can be seriously large medical bills resulting in accident victims suffering a financial strain. In an ideal world, the at-fault driver’s insurance company would cover the costs incurred by the accident’s victims. However, while New Hampshire law requires drivers to have auto insurance, there may be times that the at-fault drivers are either uninsured or underinsured and therefore cannot pay fully for the harm caused. Currently, in New Hampshire, recent statistics indicate that about 9% of drivers don’t have any car insurance.

To solve this problem, New Hampshire requires that all drivers who purchase auto-insurance also purchase Uninsured Motorists Coverage of the same amount. This coverage will help drivers cover the costs of injuries that result from an accident with an at-fault uninsured or underinsured driver. It will also protect drivers from hit-and-runs, where the victim has no chance to discover who the at-fault driver is. However, what happens if a driver’s Uninsured Motorists Coverage is still not enough to cover all the costs?

Under New Hampshire law, accident victims may be entitled to “stack” their Uninsured Motorist Coverage limits if they purchased the insurance for more than one vehicle. For instance, a couple may purchase auto insurance, and thus Uninsured Motorists Coverage as well, for both of their vehicles and have coverage of up to $50,000 per vehicle. If the husband is then in a crash with an uninsured driver, and his resulting medical bills are $80,000, the $50,000 will not cover it all. Depending on his insurance policy, however, he may be able to stack the coverage from his wife’s car as well, which adds up to $100,000 and would allow him to cover the $80,000.

When a New Hampshire driver suffers injuries or property damage in a car accident, they are entitled to seek damages from the party or parties they believe to be responsible for their injuries. One of the first steps to recovering losses is to file a claim with the at-fault party’s insurance company. This process may raise some challenges, especially when the other party is underinsured or uninsured. Under state law, New Hampshire drivers must obtain the appropriate amount of car insurance coverage. Having sufficient insurance coverage is particularly important in instances where the other party is either unknown or unable to compensate the injured driver fully.

There are generally nine types of coverage that are available to New Hampshire drivers. The types of coverage are, auto liability, bodily injury, property damage, uninsured or underinsured bodily injury, medical payments, collision, comprehensive, towing and labor, and rental reimbursement expenses. Motorists often do not realize that many New Hampshire drivers lack adequate insurance, and this can result in a financial burden to the injured driver and their passengers, even if they are not at fault for causing a collision.

New Hampshire does not require that motorists obtain liability auto car insurance. However, New Hampshire’s car insurance law mandates uninsured drivers to have adequate assets to pay damages if they cause an accident. Uninsured New Hampshire drivers may risk license suspension if they cause an accident with more than $1000 of damages and cannot pay compensation to the injured party.

The result of a New Hampshire personal injury lawsuit hinges on the evidence a plaintiff presents. A plaintiff’s evidence must demonstrate that the negligent or willful behavior of the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Evidence establishing negligence or willful conduct is obligatory in any personal injury lawsuit. It not only proves negligence, but it is used when determining the extent of damages. Protecting evidence is a vital legal requirement that both parties must follow.

When a party in a New Hampshire personal injury lawsuit negligently or intentionally fails to preserve evidence, they may face court fines and other sanctions based on the concept of spoliation. Certain states recognize a specific tort for spoliation, however, many others, including New Hampshire, remedy spoliation by sanctions or adverse jury instructions. Spoliation occurs when one party destroys, damages, fabricates, changes, or loses crucial and relevant evidence. Specifically, New Hampshire courts define spoliation as the “intentional, negligent, or malicious destruction of relevant evidence.” Some common examples of spoliation are behaviors such as; destroying security footage that recorded an accident, tampering with complaint reports that show a prior history of similar incidents, and forging safety compliance documents.

Although New Hampshire courts have yet to determine whether spoliation should be its own tort, they do impose sanctions on the violating party. In instances where a party is adversely impacted by spoliation, that impacted party may request a jury instruction that addresses the spoliation. The jury may be instructed that they can draw adverse inferences towards the offending party and the evidence that they destroyed. This instruction is only appropriate when the evidence was destroyed on purpose with fraudulent intent.

The continuing investigation into Boston’s Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) following the New Hampshire crash that killed seven, revealed that employees knew of computer problems a year before the crash. The inquiry into the RMV follows a tragic New Hampshire accident when a truck driver under the influence of drugs crossed a highway and collided and killed seven motorcyclists. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) conducted a detailed investigation of the accident and discovered that the truck driver’s serious traffic and safety violations dated back to 2012. The truck driver obtained a commercial driver’s license despite his disturbing driving and criminal history.

The RMV has been under scrutiny following this accident because it is unclear why a driver with prior arrests in six states for various drug and driving offenses was able to obtain a license. The former head of the RMV admitted that it was her understanding that the agency did not process out-of-state driving histories and notifications until she took over in 2015. She claimed that she began addressing the issue, however, the agency lacked the resources to keep up with the backlog.

According to a recent news report, more recent investigations uncovered a 2018 email written by an RMV officer in which he noted that there were “serious problems” with the agency’s computer system. The email was written in 2018 and forwarded to various RMV employees. It referenced the various lapses and divergence from policies and procedures. The hearings officer also questioned why Massachusetts driving records did not indicate that drivers had out-of-state violations. However, despite being informed that there was a problem with their reporting system, no one at the RMV took steps to address and correct the problem.

Recently, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued a ruling in an appeal stemming from a premises liability lawsuit against a property owner. The case originated after a man fell on a property while leaving a New Hampshire business. The man suffered injuries because of the fall, and he and his wife collectively filed a lawsuit against the property owner for negligence and loss of consortium. The couple alleged that the fall occurred because the stairs were inadequate, dangerous, and did not meet building codes. The complaint stated that the stairs were too steep and missing handrails.

Under New Hampshire law, property and business owners must ensure that their land is safe for guests and visitors. In most cases, if a person sustains injuries because of a dangerous condition on the property, they may be able to file a premises liability lawsuit against the owner. Some common places where these types of injuries occur are stores, apartment complexes, sidewalks, parks, restaurants, and residential homes.

In these cases, the victim must be able to establish that their injuries were because of the owner’s negligence or carelessness. Typical premises liability actions stem from slip and falls, property collapses, and animal bites. Often, a plaintiff will offer evidence that the property did not comply with applicable building and safety codes to establish liability. They may also point to dangerous aspects of the location, such as defects, missing safety features, poor lighting, disrepair, and lack of warning signs.

Contact Information