Margaret Dolbeare v. City of Laconia, 168 N.H. 52

Background

Plaintiff Margaret Dolbeare was injured when her foot caught on the edge of a mat while using playground swings at Opechee Park, owned and maintained by the City of Laconia.
Dolbeare sued the City for negligence and nuisance based on injuries from the playground equipment.
The City moved to dismiss, asserting recreational-use immunity under RSA 212:34, II and RSA 508:14, I; the trial court denied dismissal and the City appealed interlocutorily.
The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that both statutes apply to municipalities for purposes of the transferred questions.
The core legal questions: whether using playground equipment is an "outdoor recreational activity" under RSA 212:34, II and whether it constitutes "use [of] land" under RSA 508:14, I.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether using playground equipment is an "outdoor recreational activity" under RSA 212:34, II	Use of man‑made playground equipment is not of the same class as activities listed in the statute and thus excluded under ejusdem generis; immunity shouldn’t cover injuries from negligently maintained man‑made attractions	Playground equipment use is an outdoor recreational activity similar to listed pursuits (many involve man‑made equipment) and thus falls within RSA 212:34, II	Court held it is an "outdoor recreational activity" and RSA 212:34, II applies to the negligence claim
Whether using playground equipment is the "use [of] land" under RSA 508:14, I	Using the equipment is not the "use of land" and thus not covered by RSA 508:14, I	Plaintiff used City land to access the playground, so RSA 508:14, I immunity applies (following Coan)	Court held it is the "use [of] land" and RSA 508:14, I applies to the negligence claim
Whether the trial court properly denied the City’s motion to dismiss the negligence claim	Trial court found statutes didn’t apply, so denial appropriate	City argued immunity statutes barred the negligence claim and dismissal was required	Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded, holding the trial court erred as to the negligence claim
Applicability to nuisance claim	Plaintiff also alleged nuisance; trial court did not decide immunity as to nuisance	City argued immunity would bar nuisance claim	Court declined to decide immunity for nuisance because trial court had not ruled on whether a nuisance claim was stated

Key Cases Cited

Lawrence v. Philip Morris USA, 164 N.H. 93 (2012) (procedural standard for interlocutory appeal statements)
Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503 (2010) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Coan v. N.H. Dep’t of Env’t Servs., 161 N.H. 1 (2010) (RSA 508:14 applies where land is used to access a recreational activity)
Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 152 N.H. 265 (2005) (statutes that abrogate common‑law recovery are strictly construed)
In the Matter of Hennessey-Martin & Whitney, 151 N.H. 207 (2004) (application of ejusdem generis in statutory construction)
Petition of Kilton, 156 N.H. 632 (2007) (public policy determinations are for the legislature)
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (1993) (procedural citation for short‑form consideration)