Fanny v. Pike Industries, Inc.
William Fanny, by His Father and Next Friend, Richard Fanny v. Pike Industries, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Memorandum Opinion
This is an appeal from the granting of defendant’s motion for non-suit. Plaintiff’s exception was transferred by DiClerico, J.
On June 13, 1974, the plaintiff, then fourteen, was operating a mini-bike, an off-highway recreational vehicle (OHRV), on State land. The defendant was constructing alterations to a highway interchange and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently failed to warn and erect appropriate barriers which would have prevented the plaintiff from driving into a culvert and injuring himself. At trial the defendant moved for a nonsuit at the end of plaintiffs opening statement. The motion was granted after the trial court determined that there was no duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
*109 Subject to certain exceptions, RSA 212:341 provides that a lessee or occupant of premises “owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for . . . OHRVs as defined in RSA 269-C . . . Plaintiffs opening statement did not bring him within any of the exceptions. See, e.g., RSA 212:34 III. Furthermore, RSA 269-C:6 II provides that no one shall operate an OHRV “upon any portion of the right-of-way of any public way.” We find no error.
Exception overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.