Douglas Milbury v. Peaslee Hill, LLC
Douglas Milbury v. Peaslee Hill, LLC, No. 2015-0511 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0511, Douglas Milbury v. Peaslee Hill, LLC, the court on January 13, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- MacIe v. Helms 156 N.H. 222
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0511, Douglas Milbury v. Peaslee Hill,
LLC, the court on January 13, 2016, issued the following order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Douglas Milbury, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Smukler, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant, Peaslee Hill, LLC.
He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) granting summary judgment to the
defendant; and (2) finding, upon undisputed facts, that: (a) the defendant did not
owe him a duty; (b) Jeffrey Knight was not the defendant’s agent; (c) the
defendant did not violate its duty to invitees; and (d) the defendant was not the
proximate cause of his injuries. See Macie v. Helms, 156 N.H. 222, 225 (2007)
(holding scope of duty limited to reasonably foreseeable risks).
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk