Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Grafton No. 2005-399 RANDALL MEIER v. TOWN OF LITTLETON & a. Argued: May 17, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 3, 2006 Upton & Hatfield, LLP, of Concord (David P. Slawsky on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff. Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Donald E. Gardner and Donald L. Smith on the brief, and Mr. Gardner orally), for defendant Town of Littleton. Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Stephen G. LaBonte, attorney, on the brief and orally) for defendant State of New Hampshire. BRODERICK, C.J. The plaintiff, Randall Meier, appeals a ruling of the Superior Court (Burling, J.) dismissing his suit against the defendants, the Town of Littleton (town) and the State of New Hampshire (State), on grounds of res judicata. We reverse and remand.

The facts are not in dispute. Raymond P. Zolton, individually and as the executor of his wife's estate, sued all the parties in this case to recover for his personal injuries and for the death of his wife. The suit arose from a traffic accident in which Randall Meier struck the Zoltons with his truck while they were crossing Main Street in Littleton at a crosswalk that was allegedly improperly designed. Meier filed a brief statement asserting several defenses, including that: "[t]he carelessness, recklessness and negligence of a person or persons other than [him were] the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' damages, if any." The case settled before trial, and all parties stipulated that the docket be marked: "Neither party. No costs. No interest. No further action for the same cause." In exchange for the settlement, Zolton executed releases in favor of all the defendants, but neither the town nor the State requested Meier to execute a release in its favor. Shortly after the docket markings were filed, Meier initiated this action against the town and the State, his former co-defendants. He claimed to have suffered damages

Download 2005-399, RANDALL MEIER v. TOWN OF LITTLETON & a..pdf

New Hampshire Law