Cited by

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304 (1992).

“It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the definition of a term in a statute controls its 6 meaning.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 303 (1992) (quotation omitted).

As an initial matter, we note that defendants Dr. Madden, Dr. Lesser, Foundation Medical Partners and Foundation Neurology contest whether an opinion letter authored by one plaintiff expert, Dr. Fischer, should be considered part of the summary judgment record, arguing that “[r]eliance on the unsworn disclosure is inappropriate.” See Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 301-02 (1992) (deposition sufficient to satisfy affidavit requirement under RSA 491:8-a, II).

Generally, “persons owe a duty of care only to those who are foreseeably endangered by their conduct and only with respect to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonably dangerous.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304 (1992) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 300-01 (1992).

‘[W]hether a defendant’s conduct creates a sufficiently foreseeable risk of harm to others sufficient to charge the defendant with a duty to avoid such conduct is a question of law.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 306, 605 A.2d 208, 214 (1992); Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 984, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977).

“Generally, persons will not be found negligent if they could not reasonably foresee that their conduct would result in an injury to another or if their conduct was reasonable in light of the anticipated risks.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992).

*449 “[P]ersons owe a duty of care only to those who are foreseeably endangered by their conduct and only with respect to those risks or hazards whose likelihood made the conduct unreasonably dangerous.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992).

5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1384, at 84-85 (Chadbourn rev. 1974); cf. Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 301-02, 605 A.2d 208, 211 (1992).

“[D]uty and foreseeability are inextricably bound together,” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992) (quotation omitted), and as such a duty arises only under special circumstances where it is foreseeable that a signalee driver will not independently insure that the way is clear.

“[T]he trial court is obligated to grant summary judgment when, after considering all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 300-01, 605 A.2d 208, 210 (1992); see RSA 491:8-a, III (1983).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992).

“In New Hampshire, the legislature has vested the PELRB with authority to define the terms of RSA chapter 273-A and to fill in any gaps in the statute,” Appeal of University System of *727 N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 771 (1988), but where the statute already defines one of its terms, the PELRB must apply that definition, cf. Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 303, 605 A.2d 208, 212 (1992) (basic precept of statutory construction is that definition of term in a statute con

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992); Goodwin v. James, 134 N.H. 579, 583, 595 A.2d 504, 506-07 (1991); Paquette v. Joyce, 117 N.H. 832, 837, 379 A.2d 207, 210 (1977).

More recently, in Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 605 A.2d 208 (1992), we considered whether a person who leaves his keys in his vehicle is liable when his vehicle is stolen and the thief’s careless driving injures another.

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 304, 605 A.2d 208, 213 (1992).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 300-01, 605 A.2d 208, 210 (1992).

Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 300-01, 605 A.2d 208, 210 (1992).