The New Hampshire House has passed a bill that would change the law regarding how courts award damages in civil suits.
But business leaders and city and town governments are adamantly against it.
House members who rose to support the bill nearly all argued it was needed to fix a problem with negligence suits that began cropping up a few years ago.
Republican Representative Maureen Mooney of Merrimack said the problem involved how courts determined who was on the hook to pay damages.
under current case law, nh courts have broadened the term "parties", to include others not named in the case. this allows juries to consider the fault of someone not...present at trial and not represented by council. this is referred to as the 'empty chair' party since blame is placed on a party not present in court.
The bill Mooney supports would eliminate the so called "empty chair", by narrowing the definition of who could be found liable to just those named in a lawsuit.
Democratic Representative Gary Richardson of Hopkinton blames a 2003 court ruling for letting responsible parties escape paying for injuries.
And he argued that decision was leaving injured parties without any recourse to collect for damages.
so what we're really talking about here is whether the innocent plaintiff should bear the burden when an accident happens or should our insurance companies who are in the business of charging premiums to accept risk. the law has been very clear until 2003 that that risk is to be borne by the defendant. and if the defendant wants to turn around and seek contributions from other parties it may do so.....
Under current law, courts and juries often assign those found culpable in an injury into shares of responsibility.
One defendant could be found to be minimally responsible, while another might be found to be more than 50 percent responsible for causing an injury.
New Hampshire law allows courts to compel the one found at least 50 percent responsible to shoulder the entire damage award.
But it limits the amount that the minimally culpable pay to just their share of responsibility.
Republican Representative Neal Kurk of Weare warns if the House approved bill ever becomes law, the 50 percent rule would be scrapped.
He said that could lead to an outcome where those mostly responsible strike deals to minimize the amount they have to pay.
And Kurk argued that could leave the minimally responsible on the hook to pay a very large share of damages, because the law would no longer limit their exposure to just the level of their involvement.
...it doesn't make sense. its bad public policy. it going to hurt the taxpayer....should the municipality be a defendant. and all of us will pay higher insurance rates as a result of this.
New Hampshire businesses and cities and towns found themselves in alliance fighting this bill.
Business leaders claimed it would hurt their firms, because higher insurance rates would cut into profits.
Municipal leaders agreed, saying higher insurance rates would be passed on in residential taxes.
Cordell Johnston of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said he realized the bill would strongly encourage out of court settlements.
But he said he didn't like where it would leave his town in case it were involved in a negligence lawsuit.
.... if i'm a defendant who's minimally at fault, and i'm faced with the prospect of paying a million dollars in damages when i really should be paying maybe ten thousand dollars. then, yea, I'll settle for a hundred thousand dollars. but the fact that it encourages settlement through threatening people with an unfair result, we don't see that as a good thing.
In the House debate, some proponents took exception to the argument that passing the bill would lead to higher insurance rates.
They said many insurance companies were reporting record profits this year, so they could probably get along if the law changed.
Republican Representative Anthony DiFruscia of Windham said he certainly wasn't worried about them.
well i would suggest to you very strongly it is not a matter of policy to take care of insurance companies. i would suggest very strongly that its the person who got hurt who should be taken care of.
Now that the House has passed the bill, it next heads to the Senate.
A similar bill died there in 2005.
David - I was surprised at your article on HB 143 which, to my view, did not reflect an in depth understanding of this straightforward amendment. After our lengthy discussion at the press conference, I thought you understod that the purpose of the amendment is to simply return the law to the way it worked well for about 20 years. The amendment promotes settlement, keeps extraneous defendants out of court and makes the trial fairer.
The Nilsson decision requires the jury to assign fault to persons or entities who never participated in the trial. This is unfair to the person who was never represented at trial, to the plaintiff who has the defend the "empty chair" and to the jury who has to assign fault to someone who never got chance to have his/her say in court.
There is more to a complete understanding of HB 143; and I am happy to chat with you further about HB 143 if you would like to do so.
Sincerely,
Steve Borofsky