 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moody v. Continental Paving12/2/2002
n the sport" of OHRV operation. We decided this issue in the Lorette cases, where the plaintiff sustained injuries when he accidentally drove his motorcycle off the twenty-foot cliff of an abandoned pit in the defendant's sand and gravel yard. Lorette I, 140 N.H. at 209-10. In Lorette I, we held that man-made conditions such as the excavation pit constitute a "variation in terrain" and thus a danger inherent in the sport of OHRV driving under the wording of RSA 215-A:34, II. Id. at 210-11. In Lorette II, we held that the OHRV statute bars claims even when the plaintiff alleges reckless conduct on the part of the defendant. Lorette II, 142 N.H. at 212. The facts in this case are almost identical to those in the Lorette cases. Because the OHRV statute has not changed since those decisions, we hold that RSA 215-A:34, II bars the claim in this case as well.
Lorette also addressed the constitutional arguments involved in this appeal. In Lorette I, we rejected the plaintiff's equal protection and Article 14 claims, holding that the "significant benefit" of land availability conferred on the public by the OHRV statute outweighed the burden imposed by the restriction on the right to sue. Lorette I, 140 N.H. at 211-12. We affirmed this decision in Lorette II, holding that "application of the statutory bar to the plaintiff's claims based on [reckless] conduct does not alter our analysis of the constitutionality of RSA 215-A:34, II." Lorette II, 142 N.H. at 212. We decline the plaintiffs' invitation to overrule either of the Lorette decisions.
Having ruled that RSA 215-A:34, II is sufficient to bar the plaintiffs' claim, we need not reach issues related to the general recreational land use statute, RSA 508:14, I.
Affirmed.
BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK, NADEAU and DALIANIS, JJ., concurred.
|