Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families and lawmakers press for higher municipal liability caps after student’s 30‑foot fall
Summary
Supporters of HB 1064 told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the bill would align political‑subdivision liability with state law, raise damage caps and require indemnification of employees; counties, school boards and municipal associations warned it would increase litigation, premiums and defensive governing.
Supporters of House Bill 1064 urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to expand municipal liability and raise damage caps after testimony about a student gravely injured during a school career‑technical program.
Representative Gabby Gman, who identified herself and said her 17‑year‑old son Oscar fell nearly 30 feet in a high‑school program and suffered catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, told senators the family could not pursue a full legal recovery under current statutory caps. “When liability exposure is low, the calculus for cutting corners shifts,” she said, describing long hospitalizations, ongoing rehabilitation and the family’s legal and financial barriers.
Sponsor and supporters framed the measure as a limited fix, not the elimination of governmental immunity. Testimony noted the bill uses language from the state statute (RSA 541‑B) and would indemnify public employees for negligent acts within the scope of employment while excluding wanton or reckless conduct.
Opponents — including representatives of the New Hampshire Association of Counties, the New Hampshire School Boards Association and the New Hampshire Municipal Association — warned the bill would raise premiums, destabilize risk pools and push local governments toward defensive governance. “Higher financial exposure with increased caps would mean risk‑pool contributions will have to increase year after year,” said Kate Han of the Association of Counties.
County commissioners and municipal leaders told senators they worry about budget predictability and surprise assessments for taxpayers. Public‑safety and labor groups also urged caution; the New Hampshire Police Association said the bill could create legal uncertainty about protections for officers in rapidly evolving situations.
Several senators pressed witnesses about boundaries: would first responders be exposed when responding to emergencies, and how would the bill interact with workers’ compensation and existing case law? Witnesses and the sponsor said exclusions for wanton or reckless behavior remain and that much of the bill mirrors judicial interpretations long used for state employees.
The committee heard competing fixes suggested by opponents — targeted cap adjustments, anti‑frivolous‑claim language, and careful drafting — and was urged by several speakers to send the measure to interim study to refine details rather than adopt a broad rewrite.
The hearing concluded with no recorded committee vote on HB 1064 in the transcript.
