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 ___________________________ Hillsborough-northern judicial district No. 2006-695 PAUL G. BLOUIN & a. v. KURT SANBORN & a. Argued: May 9, 2007 Opinion Issued: July 18, 2007 Cronin & Bisson, P.C., of Manchester (John F. Bisson and John G. Cronin on the brief, and Mr. Cronin orally), for the plaintiffs. McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., of Manchester (Scott H. Harris and Cathryn E. Vaughn on the brief, and Mr. Harris orally), for the defendants. DALIANIS, J. The defendants, Kurt Sanborn and Manchester Downtown Visions, LLC (MDV), appeal the jury verdict against them for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. They challenge the Superior Court's (Mangones, J.) denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and remittitur. The plaintiffs, Paul G. Blouin and South Bedford Street Holdings, LLC (collectively, Blouin), cross-appeal the trial court's denial of attorney's fees. We affirm.

The following appears in the record: Blouin negotiated a "land swap" as part of a larger development plan to bring a minor league baseball park to the City of Manchester (City). It was agreed that the City would convey a certain parcel of land to Blouin and that Blouin would convey a different parcel of land to Roedel Partners of Manchester, LLC. It was also agreed that the defendants would make certain improvements to Blouin's real estate. When the City conveyed its parcel to Blouin, however, the improvements had not been made. Blouin sued the defendants under breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation theories. After trial, the jury found that both defendants breached their contract with Blouin, and that Sanborn made negligent misrepresentations to Blouin while he was acting within his scope of authority as an employee of MDV. Damages were assessed at $155,000. The defendants moved for JNOV and remittitur; Blouin moved for attorney's fees. The motions were denied, and this appeal and cross-appeal followed. The defendants first argue that Sanborn was entitled to JNOV on the negligent misrepresentation claim because at all times relevant to the litigation he was acting as a disclosed agent of MDV. We disagree. A party is entitled to JNOV only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand. Boynton v. Figueroa, 154 N.H. 592, 602 (2006). In deciding whether to grant the motion, the trial court cannot weigh the evidence or inquire into the credibility of witnesses. Id. If the evidence adduced at trial is conflicting, or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the court must deny the motion. Id. Our standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion for JNOV is extremely narrow. Id. We will not overturn the trial court's decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. "It is well settled that an agent may be liable for his own torts to a third person who is injured." Russell v. Downing, 114 N.H. 837, 839 (1974). "Unless an applicable statute provides otherwise, an actor remains subject to liability although the actor acts as an agent or an employee, with actual or apparent authority, or within the scope of employment." Restatement (Third) of Agency

Download 2006-695, PAUL G. BLOUIN & a. v. KURT SANBORN & a..pdf

New Hampshire Law