Cited by

Proximate cause is generally for the trier of fact to resolve.

Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 414 (2004) (observing that whether a defendant breached a duty of care is a question for the trier of fact); McCabe v. Arcidy, 138 N.H. 20, 24 (1993) (observing that we defer to the trial court’s judgment, as the trier of fact, on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses

Under New Hampshire law, “[c]ausation focuses on the mechanical sequence of events.” Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 414 (2004) (quotation omitted).

Proximate cause is a question for the trier of fact.

Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that either Fiesta’s employees or 5 its agents exercised any control over the road before Sophia’s death.” Cf. Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 413 (2004) (holding that, although the defendant lacked control over the adjacent public road, because it undertook to direct traffic by placing an employee on its property to signal potential patrons from the public road onto its property, it “was required to exercise reasonable care to avoid ex

Carignan v. New Hampshire Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 413 (2004).

The test of due care is what reasonable prudence would require under similar circumstances.

Absent the existence of a duty, the defendant cannot be liable 2 for negligence.

Whether a duty exists in a particular case is a question of law, which we review de novo.

See, e.g., Barbosa, 933 N.E.2d at 106-07; see also Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 418 (2004).

Ltd. P’ship, 156 N.H. 22, 25 (2007) (a landlord who undertakes to provide security has a duty to act with reasonable care); Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 413 (2004) (a speedway that voluntarily undertakes to direct traffic has a duty to act with reasonable care); Williams v. O’Brien, 140 N.H. 595, 599 (1995) (a motorist who signals another motorist to proceed into an intersection may undertake a duty of care to other motorists where it is foreseeable that the other mo

The existence of a duty in a particular case is a question of law, which we review de novo.

A jury charge is sufficient as a matter of law if it fairly presents the case to the jury such that no injustice is done to the legal rights of the parties.

‘We do not look beyond the language of the statute to determine legislative intent if the language is clear and unambiguous.” Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 419 (2004).

*295 While proximate causation generally is a question of fact, see Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, Inc., 151 N.H. 409, 414 (2004), under RSA 225-A:24,1, individuals who participate in “the sport of skiing” assume the risk of “variations in terrain” as a matter of law.

Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 416 (2004); State v. Bouchard, 138 N.H. 581, 583 (1994).

A party is entitled to a directed verdict only when the sole ■ reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.

Whether testimony is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule is for the trial court to determine.

We first examine the language of the statute and ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.

*466 This is the second appeal of this case.

“A jury charge is sufficient as a matter of law if it fairly presents the case to the jury such that no injustice is done to the legal rights of the parties.” Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 418 (2004).

Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 413-14 (2004) (quotations and citations omitted).

We first examine the language of the statute and ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.” Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 419 (2004) (citation omitted).

In a civil case, we review jury instructions in context to determine if the charge, taken in its entirety, fails to explain adequately the law applicable to the case in such a way that the jury could have been misled.

“The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to inform the jury of the appropriate standards of law by which it is to resolve them.” Carignan v. N.H. Int’l Speedway, 151 N.H. 409, 418 (2004).