The Rollinsford Fire Department (RFD) responded to a fire in a garage owned by the plaintiff’s insureds, the Janetos family. The Department cut off electrical power to the structure while fighting the fire. After the blaze was extinguished in the garage, power was restored in a manner which failed to safely isolate the wiring damaged in the fire. As a result, a second fire broke out which destroyed both the garage and the main family home.
The insurance company paid the family’s claim, and then commenced a negligence action against the town. The town defended on the basis of RSA 507-B:2, which permits suits against municipalities only for damages arising out of “ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation” of motor vehicles and “premises.” The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the action, reasoning that the statutory reference to occupation and maintenance of the premises meant that the municipality must have a more specific relationship to the real estate in question than an emergency response call in order to permit the lawsuit to proceed. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed.
The Court found that the plain language of the statute bars a lawsuit claiming negligence in the “ownership, maintenance of operation” of “premises” unless the municipality has an “ownership-like situation such as lease or rental of a property, rather than a seizure or a brief transitory presence” at the property. In this case, the activities of the fire department at the Janetos home in response to an emergency call did not arise to this standard of control, and the lawsuit was dismissed.