This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2006-430, DAN CUI v. CHIEF, BARRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
matter of law and reverse. circumstances, we hold that the district court’s order was erroneous as a
common law duty is otherwise implicated under these particular neither expressly nor impliedly imposes liability upon the Town, and no to the Dog Control Law, RSA 466:30-a (Supp. 2006). Because the statute
Department, appeals an order of the Rochester District Court (
finding the Town of Barrington (Town) liable to the plaintiff, Dan Cui, pursuant
DiMeo, J.)
DALIANIS, J.
The defendant, the Chief of the Barrington Police
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Christine Woodman Casa on the brief), for the defendant. Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman & Scott, PA, of Portsmouth
to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Dan C. Cui, by brief, pro se.
Opinion Issued: May 15, 2007 Submitted: April 19, 2007
CHIEF, BARRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
v.
DAN CUI
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2006-430 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Rochester District Court Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as law.
2
occurred.” not avoid liability by claiming that it lacked sufficient personnel to enforce the
through insurance, animals where adequate recovery is unavailable from either the owner or imposes liability upon municipalities for damage caused by a dog to other risks, if any, are reasonably foreseeable under the particular circumstances.
Id. (quotation omitted). The existence of a duty depends upon what
conduct, or] at the defendant’s hands, against the invasion which has in fact the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection [from the defendant’s because the Town had adopted the Dog Control Law, RSA 466:30-a, it could relationship between the parties. The relevant inquiry, therefore, is “whether any particular provision of the statute as authority, the district court ruled that of legal duty focuses upon the policy issues that define the scope of the capturing the dog after it had killed his neighbor’s pigs. Without identifying Condo. Assoc. v. City of Concord, 136 N.H. 300, 304 (199 2). The determination are closely related and must be considered together. See Island Shore Estates In the context of municipal liability, the concepts of duty and legal causation duty of care by the defendant that proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. Id. To prevail upon such a claim, the plaintiff must allege and prove a breach of a negligence. See, e.g., Doucette v. Town of Bristol, 138 N.H. 205, 210 (1993). responsibilities, including licensing and vaccinating. While it expressly Nor can liability otherwise be predicated upon common law municipal
of law by imposing liability upon the Town under the statute. did not include. owners. See RSA 466:30-a, III, IV. The trial court, therefore, erred as a matter law enforcement officers to impound dogs and issue notices of violation to their him as to how he could do so himself. The plaintiff ultimately succeeded in plain language of the Dog Control Law, which permits, but does not compel, Nor can we divine any implied intent to do so, particularly in the face of the to property damage resulting from alleged violations of the Dog Control Law.
see RSA 466: 21, :22 (2004), it does not extend this liability
Generally, RSA chapter 466 ( 2004 & Supp. 2006) addresses dog owner
Id.
we may not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that it statutory scheme, rather than upon isolated words or phrases. Id. However, failed to take any action to capture or remove the dog, although it did advise Murnik, 150 N.H. 690, 69 2 (2004). In doing so, we focus upon the overall was living on, and causing damage to, his property. He claimed that the Town ordinary meaning, where possible. See Lower Bartlett Water Precinct v. to the Town over the course of one and one-half years, a potentially rabid dog examining the words of the relevant statutes, ascribing to them their plain and We review the trial court’s statutory interpretation de novo and begin by
his porch caused by a stray dog. He alleged that despite numerous complaints The plaintiff filed a small claims action seeking $1,45 2.00 for damage to 3
impermissibly make the Town a guarantor of public peace, safety and welfare. the plaintiff’s property and chewing on his dwelling. To hold otherwise would impose a legal duty upon the Town to prevent a stray dog from wandering onto
BRODERICK, C.J., and DUGGAN, GALWAY and HICKS, JJ., concurred.
Reversed.
See Doucette, 1 38 N.H. at 210. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order.
1 36 N.H. at 304. Based upon the circumstances in this case, we decline to reasons for and against the recognition of a duty. Island Shores Condo. Assoc., causality ultimately depends upon consideration of the competing policy See Doucette, 138 N.H. at 210. The resolution of the question of duty and legal