This case involves municipal immunity as applied to school districts. However, since the same statutory provision that grants municipal immunity applies to towns, cities, and village districts, the reasoning of the court applies equally to all of these political subdivisions of the state.
The plaintiff in the case (Dichiara) was injured during tryouts for the high school’s basketball team. He filed an action in superior court, alleging negligence on the part of the basketball coach and respondeat superior liability on the part of the School District as the employer of the coach. “Respondeat superior” (Latin for “let the master answer”) is a concept in which an employer may be held legally responsible for the actions of its employees.
The issue before both the Superior Court and the New Hampshire Supreme Court was whether the School District and its employee were immune from liability under the terms of RSA 507-B:2. RSA 507-B:5 provides that governmental units are immune from action “to recover bodily injury, personal injury or property damage” with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions (i.e., something for which municipalities are NOT immune) is liability for damages in an action to recover for “bodily injury, personal liability or property damage caused by its fault or by fault attributable to it, arising out of ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of all motor vehicles, and all premises.” RSA 507-B:2.
The plaintiff argued that the placement of a comma in the statute should be construed as excluding from immunity any action to recover for injury or damage caused by its fault or fault attributed, whether or not the action arises out of a municipality’s ownership, occupation, maintenance of motor vehicles and premises. In other words, the plaintiff argued that municipalities should never be immune from liability for negligence. The Court rejected this argument based on the plain language of the statute, the purpose of the statute (to limit municipality liability in tort suits), and the fact that there are still situations in which a governmental entity could be found liable when there was no connection between the injury or damage and the municipality’s control over vehicles or premises.
Thus, the opinion is consistent with prior Supreme Court opinions interpreting RSA 507-B:2 and does not expand municipal liability for injury or damage arising from a municipality’s control over vehicles or premises.