Cited by

In support, they rely on Soraghan v. Mt.

Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 406 (2005) (noting that RSA 508:14, I, “limit[s] the liability of landowners toward entrants on land in circumstances that involve recreational activities for which the landowner did not charge” (emphasis added)); Estate of Gordon-Couture, 152 N.H. at 271 (explaining that RSA 508:14, I, “does not clearly eliminate al

Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 401 (2005) (if a common law right is abolished, it must be clearly expressed by the legislature).

Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc., 152 N.H. 399, 405 (2005).

“Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Soraghan v. Mt.

“Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Soraghan v. Mt.

Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 405 (2005), the defendants argue that since both RSA chapter 358-A and RSA chapter 356 seek to protect “person[s] injured,” see RSA 356:11, II (1995); RSA 358-A:10, it follows that, consistent with our practice of attempting to construe statutes that deal with similar subject matter harmoniously, we must extend Minut

Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc., 152 N.H. 399, 401 (2005).

Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 401 (2005); see RSA 21:2 (2000).