New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 231:92 (2026)
Liability of Municipalities; Standard of Care
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
231:92 Liability of Municipalities; Standard of Care. –
I. A municipality shall not be held liable for damages in an action to recover for personal injury or property damage arising out of its construction, maintenance, or repair of public highways and sidewalks constructed thereupon unless such injury or damage was caused by an insufficiency, as defined by RSA 231:90, and:
(a) The municipality received a written notice of such insufficiency as set forth in RSA 231:90, but failed to act as provided by RSA 231:91; or
(b) The selectmen, mayor or other chief executive official of the municipality, the town or city clerk, any on-duty police or fire personnel, or municipal officers responsible for maintenance and repair of highways, bridges, or sidewalks thereon had actual notice or knowledge of such insufficiency, by means other than written notice pursuant to RSA 231:90, and were grossly negligent or exercised bad faith in responding or failing to respond to such actual knowledge; or
(c) The condition constituting the insufficiency was created by an intentional act of a municipal officer or employee acting in the scope of his official duty while in the course of his employment, acting with gross negligence, or with reckless disregard of the hazard.
II. Any action to recover damages for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage arising out of municipal construction, repair or maintenance of its public highways or sidewalks constructed on such highways shall be dismissed unless the complaint describes with particularity the means by which the municipality received actual notice of the alleged insufficiency, or the intentional act which created the alleged insufficiency.
III. The acceptance or layout of a private road as a public highway shall not be construed to confer upon the municipality any notice of, or liability for, insufficiencies or defects which arose or were created prior to such layout or acceptance.
IV. The setting of construction, repair, or maintenance standards or levels of service for highways and sidewalks by municipal officials with responsibility therefor, whether accomplished formally or informally, shall be deemed a discretionary, policy function for which the municipality shall not be held liable in the absence of malice or bad faith.
I. A municipality shall not be held liable for damages in an action to recover for personal injury or property damage arising out of its construction, maintenance, or repair of public highways and sidewalks constructed thereupon unless such injury or damage was caused by an insufficiency, as defined by RSA 231:90, and:
(a) The municipality received a written notice of such insufficiency as set forth in RSA 231:90, but failed to act as provided by RSA 231:91; or
(b) The selectmen, mayor or other chief executive official of the municipality, the town or city clerk, any on-duty police or fire personnel, or municipal officers responsible for maintenance and repair of highways, bridges, or sidewalks thereon had actual notice or knowledge of such insufficiency, by means other than written notice pursuant to RSA 231:90, and were grossly negligent or exercised bad faith in responding or failing to respond to such actual knowledge; or
(c) The condition constituting the insufficiency was created by an intentional act of a municipal officer or employee acting in the scope of his official duty while in the course of his employment, acting with gross negligence, or with reckless disregard of the hazard.
II. Any action to recover damages for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage arising out of municipal construction, repair or maintenance of its public highways or sidewalks constructed on such highways shall be dismissed unless the complaint describes with particularity the means by which the municipality received actual notice of the alleged insufficiency, or the intentional act which created the alleged insufficiency.
III. The acceptance or layout of a private road as a public highway shall not be construed to confer upon the municipality any notice of, or liability for, insufficiencies or defects which arose or were created prior to such layout or acceptance.
IV. The setting of construction, repair, or maintenance standards or levels of service for highways and sidewalks by municipal officials with responsibility therefor, whether accomplished formally or informally, shall be deemed a discretionary, policy function for which the municipality shall not be held liable in the absence of malice or bad faith.
Source. RS 57:1. CS 61:1, 7. GS 69:1, 2. GL 75:1, 2. PS 76:1. 1893, 59:1. 1915, 48:1. 1921, 107:1. 1925, 52:2, 4. PL 89.1. 1935, 118:1. RL 105:1. 1945, 188:1, part 18:17. RSA 247:17. 1981, 87:1. 1991, 385:5, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Cloutier v. City of Berlin, 907 A.2d 955 (N.H. 2006).
Cloutier v. City of Berlin, 907 A.2d 955 (N.H. 2006). “Next, she argues that, regardless of the existence of liability insurance coverage, RSA 231:92,1(b) is not applicable in this case.”
Opinion of the Justices, 592 A.2d 180 (N.H. 1991). “See RSA 231:90 (municipality liable if it fails to respond to formal notice of hazard signed by three persons in the State); RSA 231:92 (municipality liable for damages occurring on bridges, culverts, sluiceways, and embankments unsuitable for travel); RSA 412:3 (municipality…”
Schoff v. City of Somersworth, 630 A.2d 783 (N.H. 1993). “The plaintiffs’ writ alleges negligence under RSA 231:2 (1982) and RSA 231:92 (1982). The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the city had actual knowledge of the hazard; that the city has no actionable duty under the facts of this case…”
Ford v. New Hampshire Dep't of Transp., 163 N.H. 284 (N.H. 2012). “The plaintiff argues that RSA 231:91 and RSA 231:92 impose a duty upon the Town with respect to Routes 111 and 28 because RSA 231:91 and RSA 231:92, unlike RSA 231:90, do not refer explicitly to class IV and V highways.”
Richard v. Pembroke Sch. Dist., 859 A.2d 1157 (N.H. 2004). “Additionally, they contend that even if their injuries were caused by negligent maintenance of the sidewalk, the trial court erred in relying upon the district’s affidavits from school officials in determining that they failed to satisfy the notice requirements of RSA chapter…”
City of Dover v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 575 A.2d 1280 (N.H. 1990). “2d at 244 (citing RSA 245:20 (change in grade of highway) (current version at RSA 231:75); RSA 247:17 (bridges, culverts, sluiceways or dangerous embankments) (current version at RSA 231:92); RSA 412:3 (immunity waived to extent of insurance coverage); RSA 247:9, :10 (notice of…”
Doucette v. Town of Bristol & a., 635 A.2d 1387 (N.H. 1993). “City of Somersworth, we found that the plaintiffs had alleged a duty owed to them by the city based on RSA 231:92 (1982), which “permits suit for a municipality’s failure ‘to install sufficient signage and guardrails in areas of dangerous embankments.”
Bergeron v. City of Manchester, 666 A.2d 982 (N.H. 1995). “In Schoff , we were interpreting a now superseded version of RSA 231:92 (1982), which addressed municipal liability for damages resulting from “traveling upon a bridge, culvert, or sluiceway, or dangerous embankments of which insufficient warning has been given .”
Trull v. Town of Conway, 669 A.2d 807 (N.H. 1995). “Former RSA 231:92 (1982) does not apply because Route 113 is not a “highway which the town has the duty of maintaining.”
Ford v. New Hampshire Dept. of Transp., 37 A.3d 436 (N.H. 2012). “The plaintiff argues that RSA 231:91 and RSA 231:92 impose a duty upon the Town with respect to Routes 111 and 28 because RSA 231:91 and RSA 231:92, unlike RSA 231:90, do not refer explicitly to class IV and V highways.”
Felts v. City of Rochester, 2025 N.H. 16 (N.H. 2025). “) ruling that the City is not entitled to limited liability under RSA 231:92, I (2009) for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was using a crosswalk that lacked warning signs or signals.”
Cole v. Town of Conway, 2024 N.H. 21 (N.H. 2024). “The plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that the defendant was entitled to immunity pursuant to RSA 231:92 (2009); and (2) denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.