nexus between claim in New Hampshire

2025Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696-97 (2013) (“Under a plain reading of the statute, RSA 507-B:2 provides an exception for fault-based claims only when there is a nexus between the claim and the government unit’s ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or premises.”).

2015One exception to RSA 507-B:5 is contained in RSA 507-B:2 (2010), which states that “[a] governmental unit may be held liable for damages in an action to recover for bodily injury, personal injury 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.” We have construed RSA 507-B:2 to provide an exception for fault-based claims “only when there is a nexus between the claim and the governmental unit’s ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or premis

2025Specifically, we concluded that the term “operation . . . of all premises” in RSA 507-B:2 does not include the operation of a business or enterprise located on those premises, and we held that the RSA 507-B:2 exception to municipal immunity requires “a nexus between the claim and the governmental unit’s . . . operation of its physical premises.” Id. at 50-51 .

2017Dist., 168 N.H. 47, 51 (2015) (concluding “that the RSA 507-B:2 exception to municipal immunity requires a nexus between the claim and the 3 governmental unit’s ownership, occupation, or operation of its physical premises”).

2015Dist., 165 N.H. 694, 696-97 (2013), in Huclcins we held that “it is unconstitutional for the State to immunize itself or its municipalities from liability for intentional torts committed by government employees when those torts are not grounded on a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of the disputed act.” Huckins, 166 N.H. at 182 (emphasis omitted).