Ellen Merrill-Pugsley & a. v. Rebecca Dalida

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0507, Ellen Merrill-Pugsley & a. v.
Rebecca Dalida, the court on June 17, 2024, 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 plaintiffs, Ellen Merrill-Pugsley and George Pugsley,
appeal the order of the Superior Court (Delker, J.), entering summary judgment
in favor of the defendant, Rebecca Dalida. The plaintiffs argue that the trial
court erred by ruling that the defendant was not liable for their injuries under
RSA 466:19 (2018) because, as a matter of law, her dog’s conduct was not
“mischievous.” The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that the court
erroneously required proof of the dog’s mischievous intent. The defendant
cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff did
not qualify as the keeper of the dog, precluding liability.

As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have 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 plaintiffs’ challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Given our decision, we need not reach the issue raised in the defendant’s
cross-appeal. See Antosz v. Allain, 163 N.H. 298, 302 (2012) (declining to
address parties’ other arguments where holding on one issue is dispositive).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk