Idea storage

Friday, June 24, 2005

New Hampshire Supreme Court: three new decisions

Tothill v. The Estate of Warren Center; Mt. Washington Assurance Corporation v. Phenix Mutual Fire Insurance Company (consolidated appeal) (June 24, 2005): The primary issue was whether Tothill, who was injured while employed by Center, could sue him for negligence. Because she accepted workier's compensation benefits, she could not - her sole remedy was through worker's compensation. Her argument that she was not a "domestic employee" as defined by the worker's compensation statute was irrelevant, because, although perhaps Center was not required to obtain worker's compensation for Tothill, he did, and her claim was accepted.

Appeal of Simone Riendeau
(June 24, 2005): The Court upheld the tribunal's decision that a cashier who sold cigarettes to a minor, but otherwise had a perfect employment record, was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The tribunal did not err in finding that this single act was "deliberate," thus rendering the cashier's unemployment the result of misconduct.

Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort (June 24, 2005): The question was whether the Ski Resort should be liable for Soraghan's injuries, when Soraghan was not paying to ski, but was on the premises to watch and volunteer. The Court found that, even though Soraghan didn't pay to get in, she was on the property for a "purpose related to the landowner's business for which the landowner customarily charges." Therefore, RSA 508:14 did not give the Ski Resort immunity, because this statute was designed to promote private land being opened up for recreational use without charge. The Court also rejected the argument that RSA 212:34 gave the Ski Resort immunity for the same reason. Rather, the Court found that ski operator liability is governed by RSA 225-A, because it specifically addressed ski operators, not the general recreation use of land.


Post a Comment

<< Home