Dennis G. Huckins v. Mark McSweeney & a.

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire answered affirmatively a certified question concerning whether RSA 507-B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 are constitutional under Part I, Article 14 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The court held that the statutes, construed to provide municipalities with immunity for intentional torts committed by employees who reasonably believe their conduct is lawful, were constitutional as applied and facially. The court remanded the matter to the federal district court.

Holdings

1. The statutes do not violate Part I, Article 14 as applied to Huckins because he retains a direct statutory or common-law claim against the alleged tortfeasor, McSweeney, even though the Town is immune from the vicarious battery claim.
2. The statutes are constitutional because, properly construed, they provide municipalities immunity from intentional torts committed by municipal employees under the same terms and conditions that RSA 541-B:19 provides sovereign immunity to the State for intentional torts committed by State employees.
3. The facial constitutional challenge fails because the statutes are constitutional as applied to Huckins.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 507-B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 violate Part I, Article 14 of the New Hampshire Constitution by preventing recovery against a municipality for a municipal employee's intentional tort under respondeat superior.
2. Whether the statutes, as applied to Huckins's battery and vicarious-liability claims, deny him a constitutional remedy.
3. Whether the statutes violate equal protection by allegedly treating plaintiffs injured by municipal employees differently from plaintiffs injured by State employees.
4. Whether the statutes are facially unconstitutional.

Disposition

remanded