Dawnmarie Greenman v. Port City Nissan, Inc.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0412, Dawnmarie Greenman v. Port City
Nissan, Inc., the court on April 10, 2023, issued the following
order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on
appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct.
R. 20(2). The plaintiff, Dawnmarie Greenman, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Attorri, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant, Port City
Nissan, Inc., on her negligent supervision claim. We affirm.

In reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the
parties’ affidavits, other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. St. Onge v. MacDonald, 154
N.H. 768, 770 (2007). If there is no genuine issue of material fact, and if the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the grant of summary
judgment is proper. Id. We review the trial court’s application of the law to the
facts de novo. Id.

The plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim rested upon her allegation that
the defendant’s sales manager observed an alleged assault by the defendant’s
employee and failed to intervene or otherwise prevent subsequent alleged
assaults by the employee. The trial court determined that the defendant was
entitled to summary judgment “because, no matter how it might be construed,”
the deposition testimony of the general manager “regarding the date on which he
learned of Plaintiff’s allegations cannot support a finding that [the sales manager]
observed” the first of the alleged assaults. The trial court concluded that the
plaintiff’s reliance upon her speculation that the sales manager observed the first
alleged assault was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s summary judgment
motion. See Burnap v. Somersworth Sch. Dist., 172 N.H. 632, 636 (2019)
(observing that granting summary judgment to the defendant “is appropriate if
the plaintiff rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and
unsupported speculation” (quotation omitted)).

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.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2