New Hampshire
How Davis v. State of Wisconsin applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
New Hampshire recognizes the principles of governmental immunity and the exceptions that allow for recovery where the state has waived its immunity. This is similar to the principles articulated in Davis v. State of Wisconsin, focusing on whether a duty was owed and whether that duty was breached by the state’s actions.
In New Hampshire, the doctrine of governmental immunity holds that the state is generally immune from liability unless the claim falls within an established exception recognized by statute or case law, such as negligence in operating a public entity or engaging in proprietary functions.
The court held that the state had a duty to maintain its roadways safely and that breach of this duty could lead to liability despite governmental immunity.
The court ruled that the state can be held liable for injuries caused by a defective public road, recognizing an exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity.
The court emphasized that state employees can be personally liable for negligent acts performed within the scope of their employment.
New Hampshire's approach to governmental immunity involves nuanced exceptions that differ from the federal standard under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows for more general waivers of immunity in cases involving federal employees. In contrast, New Hampshire's statutes dictate specific contexts in which liability can arise, making the state’s application potentially more restrictive.
Understanding the nuances of governmental immunity in tort cases is essential for the New Hampshire bar exam, as it frequently tests applicants on the scope and exceptions of state liability.