Cited by

“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.” DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 812 (2006).

DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 803-04 (2006); see also State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 168 N.H. 211, 259 (2015) (“Pursuant to RSA 507:7-e and DeBenedetto, defendants may ask a jury to shift or apportion fault from themselves to other nonparties in a case.”).

DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 812 (2006).

“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.” DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 812 (2006).

RSA 507:7-e and DeBenedetto Exxon argues that it was “unfairly prejudiced in its ability to present its defense” under RSA 507:7-e (2010) and DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc., 153 N.H. 793 (2006).

RSA 507:7-d to:7-i (2010); see also DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 798 (2006) (discussing the legislative history of RSA 507:7-d to:7-i).

DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 798 (2006).

tations: (1) statements on the defendants’ property disclosure form, which provided that all building modifications were done with the necessary permits; and (2) Lees’s verbal representation that, “I did everything the town asked.” The defendants filed a special plea asserting comparative negligence pursuant to RSA 507:7-d (2010), a DeBenedetto statement, see DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793 (2006), and a motion in limine seeking apportionment to a number of parties, including

Even if we were to assume that the statute is reasonably susceptible to interpretations that favor both the defendant and the State, see DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, 797-98 (2006), we would conclude that the legislative history supports a broader proscription.

Nepomnayshy and Mahon under RSA 507:7-e, 1(c) (1997); and (2) Dr. Kleeman failed to adduce adequate evidence to apportion fault to non-litigants pursuant to our holdings in Nilsson v. Bierman, 150 N.H. 393 (2003), and DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793 (2006).

In DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, 153 N.H. 793 (2006), a decision issued after this interlocutory appeal was filed, we again reviewed the scope of the term “party” in the apportionment statute, RSA 507:7-e.

The plaintiffs rely upon Nilsson and DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793 (2006), to support their argument.

DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng’rs, 153 N.H. 793, *311 806 (2006).