Dennis G. Huckins v. Mark McSweeney & a., 90 A.3d 1236

Plaintiff Dennis Huckins alleges a Sanbornton police officer, Mark McSweeney, used a stun gun on him multiple times during a field sobriety encounter; McSweeney contends he fired once as Huckins fled.
Huckins sued McSweeney for battery and the Town of Sanbornton under respondeat superior; the district court denied summary judgment for McSweeney and held the Town's motion without prejudice pending certification.
The U.S. District Court certified whether RSA 507-B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 (municipal liability limits) violate Part I, Article 14 of the New Hampshire Constitution by barring vicarious liability for the Town for McSweeney's alleged battery.
Part I, Article 14 guarantees access to a remedy for injuries but does not guarantee full compensation in all cases.
The Supreme Court construed RSA 507-B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 to be coextensive with State sovereign-immunity limitations in RSA 541-B:19: municipalities are immune for intentional torts only when the employee reasonably believes the conduct is lawful and within official duties.
Because the statutes permit a direct action against the individual officer and, as construed, do not discriminate between municipal and State employees, the Court held the statutes constitutional both as-applied and facially.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 507-B:2 and RSA 507-B:5 violate Part I, Art. 14 by barring municipal vicarious liability for battery	Huckins: statutes render remedy against Town illusory; as-applied unconstitutional because plaintiff cannot obtain full relief from Town	Town: statutes are constitutional limits on municipal liability; plaintiff can sue the individual officer	Held: Statutes constitutional. Plaintiff retains remedy against the officer; statutes read to grant municipalities immunity for intentional torts only when employee reasonably believed conduct lawful (paralleling RSA 541-B:19)
Whether statutes violate equal protection by treating municipal employee intentional-tort victims differently than State employee victims	Huckins: statutes create unequal treatment, disadvantaging plaintiffs injured by municipal employees	Town/State: no improper discrimination; statutes can be construed consistent with State immunity rules	Held: No equal protection violation. Court construes municipal statutes to mirror State sovereign-immunity standard, so treatment is not different

Eng Khabbaz v. Comm’r, Social Sec. Admin., 155 N.H. 798 (discusses standards for reviewing district court-certified facts)
State Employees’ Assoc. of N.H. v. State of N.H., 161 N.H. 730 (presumption of constitutionality and statutory construction in favor of validity)
Roberts v. Town of Windham, 165 N.H. 186 (court is final arbiter of legislative intent)
Ocasio v. Fed. Express Corp., 162 N.H. 436 (holding that inability to recover from one defendant does not deprive constitutional remedy when other remedies remain)
Petition of Goffstown Educ. Support Staff, 150 N.H. 795 (access to remedy is relative; not all impairments are prohibited)
State v. Hollenbeck, 164 N.H. 154 (distinguishing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges)
Appeal of Silverstein, 163 N.H. 192 (Part I, Article 14 implies equal protection in access to courts)
City of Dover v. Imperial Cas. & Indemn. Co., 133 N.H. 109 (municipal immunity for intentional torts when employee reasonably believed conduct lawful)
Opinion of the Justices, 126 N.H. 554 (State immunity for intentional torts conditioned on reasonable belief in lawfulness)