New Boston NH OHRV Accident
Feniger & Uliasz Lawyers
Are you looking for help with a case similar to these?
Contact us right now and speak with one of our lawyers!
(800) 828-3200 (603) 627-5997
or info@fenigeranduliasz.com
Hillsborough County NH Superior Court
THE PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the Town of Weare, County of Hillsborough, State of New Hampshire.
2. The Defendant is a domestic corporation with a principle office address in Londonderry, New Hampshire
3. The Defendant is a minor, age 16, residing in Town of Weare, County of Hillsborough, State of New Hampshire.
4. The Defendant is an individual residing in Town of Weare, County of Hillsborough, State of New Hampshire.
COMMON AVERMENTS
5. On or about June 10, 2007 the plaintiff was operating an off highway recreational vehicle (OHRV) within a sand pit in New Boston, New Hampshire, owned and controlled by the defendant Corporation along with minor defendant and two other individuals when a collision occurred between the vehicles operated by said Plaintiff and minor defendant who was then and there operating an OHRV owned by his father also a defendant.
6. That the sand pit, owned and controlled by defendant, Corporation was not open to the general public but rather was secured and only accessible for the private use of those individuals permitted onto the premises by said defendant.
7. That on or about June 10, 2007 the minor defendant was granted access to the subject sand pit by defendant Corporation, its agents, servants or assigns, for the purpose of operating OHRV’s.
8. That on or about June 10, 2007 the minor defendant granted access to the subject sand pit to three individuals including the Plaintiff.
9. That at the time and place of the collision as alleged the minor defendant was operating a 2004 Bombardier ATV, NH registration 40434, owned by his defendant father
10. That as the direct and proximate result of the collision as alleged the plaintiff has sustained severe and permanent injuries to his right leg, undergone several surgeries in the treatment thereof, incurred medical bills in excess of $30,000.00 to date, will incur future medical bills and endured conscious pain and suffering which is ongoing.
11. That as a direct and proximate result of the collision as alleged the plaintiff has lost wages, continues to lose wages and is likely to suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future.
COUNT I
12. This count is against defendant Corporation and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs one through eleven and further states:
13. That the defendant, through its agents, servants or assigns provided the minor defendant with access to the sand pit to which it had ownership and control and was otherwise inaccessible to the general public.
14. That the defendant, through its agents, servants or assigns knew or should have known that the minor defendant along with an undetermined number of other teenagers or young adults used said sand pit for the purpose of operating OHRV’s and intended to do so on the date of the alleged occurrence.
15. That the defendant knew or should have known of the inherent dangers in the operation of OHRV’s.
16. That the defendant knew or should have known that the inherent dangers in the operation of OHRV’s would be enhanced when said vehicles were operated by teenagers or young adults with limited experience in the maintenance or operation of such vehicles and that the minor defendant fell within this class of individuals.
17. That with knowledge that the sand pit would be used for the operation of OHRV’s by teenagers or young adults the defendant owed a duty to supervise the use of the sand pit, to make sure that vehicles operated within the sand pit were in good working condition, free of mechanical defects and operated by individuals with the necessary experience to engage in safe operation.
18. That the defendant breached said duty of care by granting unrestricted and unsupervised access to the minor defendant, by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the OHRV’s to be operated in the sand pit were in good working condition and free of mechanical defects, failing to use reasonable care to ensure that operators of said OHRV’s were of sufficient experience to safely maintain or operate said OHRV’s and to further supervise the operation on the premises it owned and controlled.
19. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of said duty of care by the defendant, its agents, servants or assigns, the Plaintiff was caused to sustain the injuries and damages as hereinbefore alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:
1. Judgment for damages plus interest from the day of his cause of action.
2. Reasonable cost and attorney’s fees.
3. For such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem just and proper.
The Plaintiff demands a jury to hear his cause.
COUNT II
20. This count is against defendant father for negligent maintenance and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs one through eleven and further states:
21. That as the registered owner of the subject vehicle the defendant owed a duty of care to maintain said vehicle in a reasonably safe and proper working condition, free of mechanical defects such that the vehicle could be operated safely for its intended purpose.
22. That the defendant breached said duty of care by failing to maintain the subject vehicle in a reasonably safe and proper working condition to wit; tires lacking sufficient tread, brake pads in need of replacement, hydraulic system in need of repair and a braking system that was in general failing to function at the time of the occurrence as alleged.
23. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of said duty of care by the defendant, failure of the defendant to maintain the subject vehicle in reasonably safe and proper working condition the plaintiff was caused to sustain the injuries and damages as hereinbefore alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:
4. Judgment for damages plus interest from the day of his cause of action.
5. Reasonable cost and attorney’s fees.
6. For such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem just and proper.
The Plaintiff demands a jury to hear his cause.
COUNT III
24. This count is against defendant father for negligent entrustment and incorporates by reference paragraphs one through sixteen and further states:
25. That the defendant owed a duty of care to entrust the use of the subject OHRV only to those individuals with adequate training and experience in the maintenance and operation of such vehicles so as to ensure that said vehicle was properly maintained and operated with reasonable care.
26. That the defendant breached said duty by entrusting the use of the subject OHRV to his minor son, an individual without adequate training or experience in the operation of the vehicle and without sufficient experience to recognize mechanical defects so as to ensure its safe operation.
27. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of said duty of care by the defendant in the entrustment of the subject OHRV to the minor the Plaintiff was caused to sustain the injuries and damages as hereinbefore alleged
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:
7. Judgment for damages plus interest from the day of his cause of action.
8. Reasonable cost and attorney’s fees.
9. For such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem just and proper.
The Plaintiff demands a jury to hear his cause.
COUNT IV
28. This count is against defendant minor for negligence in the operation of the subject OHRV and incorporates by reference paragraphs one through twenty and further states:
29. That the defendant owed a duty to operate the subject OHRV with reasonable care and to use reasonable care to inspect and maintain said vehicle before and periodically during its operation.
30. That the defendant breached said duty by failing to use reasonable care in the inspection, maintenance and repair of said vehicle prior to and during operation at the time of the occurrence as alleged to wit; failing to identify and repair worn tires and malfunctioning brakes.
31. That the defendant breached said duty by failing to use reasonable care in the operation of the subject vehicle to wit; traveling at an excessive rate of speed given the condition of the road surface, worn tires and malfunctioning brakes and failing to operate to the right of the roadway and further failing to move to the right to avoid an oncoming vehicle.
32. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of said duties of care by the defendant the Plaintiff was caused to sustain the injuries and damages as hereinbefore alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plainitff requests:
10. Judgment for damages plus interest from the day of his cause of action.
11. Reasonable cost and attorney’s fees.
12. For such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem just and proper.
The Plaintiff demands a jury to hear his cause.
