Cited by

“A motion in limine is sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal without objection at trial if the trial court definitively rules upon the issue prior to trial.” Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 431 (2010).

RSA 541-B:1, II-a (Supp. 2019); see Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 436 (2010).

Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 425 (2010); Figlioli, 151 N.H. at 626.

The trial court has broad discretion over the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence at trial.

To determine whether expert testimony is required, we must determine whether this issue — whether the plaintiff’s pain and suffering from salmonella “will continue into the future” — is “within the realm of common knowledge and everyday experience” of the average layman, Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 427 (2010), or whether an expert opinion is needed to “preclude the jury from engaging in idle speculation,” Estate of Joshua T. v. State, 150 N.H. 405, 408 (2003) (quotation omitted).

“The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is within the trial court’s sound discretion.” Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 429 (2010).

RSA 99–D:1 represents “a statement of policy adopting the common law doctrines of sovereign and official immunity.” Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 437 (2010).

As we explained in Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419 (2010), “the legislature intended this chapter to govern all claims against the State and/or its employees unless another remedy is specifically provided by statute.” Laramie, 160 N.H. at 437.

Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 427 (2010) (“Expert testimony is required when the subject presented is so distinctly related to some science, profession or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layperson.”); RSA 516:29-a (2007) (“A witness shall not be allowed to offer expert testimony unless the court finds: (a) Such testimony is base

Under our case law interpreting superior court rules, “[a] party is entitled to disclosure of an opposing party’s experts, the substance of the facts and opinions about which they are expected to testify, and the basis of those opinions.” Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 425 (2010) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

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.” Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419, 436 (2010) (quotation omitted).

To address this argument, we must interpret the CPA, which is a question of law that we review de novo.