English v. Sanderson, et al.
This text of 2001 DNH 099 (English v. Sanderson, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
English v . Sanderson, et a l . CV-01-108-M 05/25/01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Deirdre English; Michael G. Terner; Rebecca F. Terner; and Richard Holliday, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ian Donald Terner, Deceased, Plaintiffs
v. Civil N o . 01-108-M Opinion N o . 2001 DNH 099 Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.; and Jeppesen & Co., GmbH, Defendants
O R D E R
In this diversity suit, plaintiffs assert a wrongful death
claim, and related causes of action sounding in tort, against
defendants, who allegedly published defective aeronautical
navigation charts that caused an aircraft crash, killing all
aboard. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on grounds that
plaintiffs’ claims are all time-barred, and plaintiffs object.
Having reviewed the pleadings, the court concludes that each
asserted cause of action is plainly barred by the applicable New
Hampshire limitations statute.
Each of plaintiffs’ claims arises from Ian Donald Terner’s
death on April 3 , 1996, in an aircraft accident that occurred in Croatia. The complaint’s basic wrongful death claim is governed
by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (“RSA”) 566:11, which provides in
pertinent part: “If an action [for wrongful death] is not then
pending, one may be brought for such cause at any time within six
years after the death of the deceased party, subject to the
provisions of RSA 508.” The relevant portion of RSA 508 states:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, all personal actions,
except actions for slander or libel, may be brought only within
three years of the act or omission complained of.” RSA 508:4.
Although plaintiffs seem to doubt i t , the New Hampshire
Supreme Court has authoritatively construed the pertinent state
law to mean that “the six-year period set forth in the statute
[RSA 566:11] is subservient to or governed by the provisions of
RSA chapter 508.” Cheever v . Southern New Hampshire Regional
Medical Center, 141 N.H. 589, 591 (1997). Accordingly, the Court
held that the limitations period applicable to wrongful death
claims i s , as a matter of New Hampshire law, three, not six,
years. (Plaintiffs seem to concede, as they must, that their
other asserted claims sounding in tort are personal actions
unambiguously subject to the three year limitations period set
out in RSA 508:4.)
2 Since the complaint asserts wrongful death and personal
causes of action, and because it was not filed within three years
of the accrual1 of those causes of action, the applicable statute
of limitations, as authoritatively construed in Cheever, operates
to bar their presentation now. That is not to say, of course,
that a reasonable and plausible alternative construction of RSA
566:11 and RSA Ch. 508 does not present itself, but merely that
the New Hampshire Supreme Court saw the issue, and resolved the
issue differently, and in a way that disposes of this matter.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (document no. 3 ) is granted.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this
order and close the case.
1 Generally tort causes of action accure when plaintiff discovers, or thorough the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is injured and the injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct. See e.g., Sinclair v . Brill, 857 F.Supp. 132 (D.N.H. 1994); Gagnon v . G.D. Searle & Co., 889 F.2d 340 (1st Cir. 1989).
3 SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
May 2 5 , 2001
cc: Andrew M . Friedman, Esq. Pamela E . Phelan, Esq.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2001 DNH 099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-sanderson-et-al-nhd-2001.