Clarifying Municipal Immunity Under RSA 507-B: “Operation of Premises” and the Abrogation of Common-Law Negligence Claims

Introduction

In L.B., a minor v. G.T., a minor, & a. (2025), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire confronted the scope of statutory municipal immunity under RSA chapter 507-B. The plaintiff, a student injured by another student on a school playground, brought negligence claims against the Merrimack School District (SAU 26) and two school officials (the Assistant Principal and the Superintendent). The Superior Court dismissed her claims on immunity grounds and the plaintiff appealed. At issue were two questions: (1) whether negligent supervision of students on school premises qualifies as “operation of . . . premises” under RSA 507-B:2’s exception to immunity, and (2) whether RSA 507-B:5 left any common‐law negligence claims against governmental units intact. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and, in doing so, reaffirmed and clarified the limits of municipal immunity in New Hampshire.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that:

1. RSA 507-B:2’s exception for “bodily injury . . . arising out of . . . operation of . . . premises” does not encompass negligent supervision of students on a school playground. The “operation of premises” exception requires a nexus to physical care or maintenance of the property itself, not an enterprise conducted on it.
2. RSA 507-B:5’s plain language abrogates all common‐law negligence actions against governmental units, limiting liability strictly to causes of action provided by statute.

Accordingly, all claims against the School District and its officials were barred by statutory immunity, and the trial court’s dismissal was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Lamb v. Shaker Regional School District, 168 N.H. 47 (2015): Held that “operation of premises” in RSA 507-B:2 does not cover negligent supervision on playgrounds, requiring a nexus to the physical maintenance of property.
• Barufaldi v. City of Dover, 175 N.H. 424 (2022): Established the standard of review for motions to dismiss—pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
• Dichiara v. Sanborn Regional School District, 165 N.H. 694 (2013): Emphasized that RSA 507-B:2’s exception applies only when the claim relates to ownership, occupation, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle or premises.
• Chatman v. Strafford County, 163 N.H. 320 (2012): Contrasted negligent supervision (an enterprise) with negligent maintenance of premises.
• Bean v. Red Oak Property Management, 151 N.H. 248 (2004): Placed record‐development burdens on the appealing party by requiring a full appellate record including the amended complaint.
• Maryea v. Velardi, 168 N.H. 633 (2016): Distinguished between statutory immunity (RSA 507-B) and common‐law discretionary function immunity.
• Merrill v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 722 (1974): The legislative response to this case led to enactment of RSA 507-B, which comprehensively defines municipal liability.
• Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, 151 N.H. 239 (2004): Addressed legislative intent to abrogate common law; contrasted with RSA 507-B:5’s clear language.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by reaffirming the standard of review for a motion to dismiss: assume all well‐pleaded facts true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff (Barufaldi; Lamb). It then parsed RSA 507-B:

• RSA 507-B:5 provides that no governmental unit may be held liable for injury “except as provided by this chapter or as is provided or may be provided by other statute.” The Court read this as an unambiguous abrogation of any common‐law negligence claims.
• RSA 507-B:2 creates a narrow exception to immunity for liability “arising out of ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation” of motor vehicles or premises, but only when there is a direct nexus to the physical property itself (Lamb; Dichiara).

Applying these provisions, the Court found that the plaintiff’s negligent‐supervision theory did not allege any defect in the playground’s physical condition or any failure to maintain equipment. Rather, it challenged how school employees monitored or intervened in student conduct—an enterprise on the premises, not an aspect of operating the premises. Under Lamb, such claims fall outside RSA 507-B:2’s premises exception. Finally, the Court observed that the plaintiff’s reliance on common‐law negligence was foreclosed by RSA 507-B:5’s express text.

Impact

This decision cements the broad statutory immunity of New Hampshire governmental units in tort:

• School districts and other municipalities remain largely immune from suits alleging negligent supervision or other non-physical‐maintenance duties.
• Parties seeking redress for on-premises harms must identify an injury tied directly to the condition, maintenance, occupation, or operation of property or vehicle.
• Common‐law negligence claims against governmental units are effectively extinguished unless a statute expressly preserves them.

Practitioners must therefore look to specific statutory remedies (e.g., Title IX, special education statutes, or anti-bullying regulations) when seeking accountability for student-on-student injuries or analogous harms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Municipal Immunity under RSA 507-B: A statute that generally protects towns, cities, school districts, and their employees from lawsuits for injury or property damage, unless a specific statutory exception applies.
• “Operation of Premises” Exception: A limited carve-out allowing suits when the injury directly involves the physical property (e.g., a broken railing), not when it concerns activities or decisions made on the property (e.g., supervision of people).
• Statutory vs. Common-Law Immunity: RSA 507-B provides statutory immunity. Separately, courts recognize a common‐law discretionary function immunity protecting policy-driven or judgment-laden decisions by public officials.
• Abrogation of Common Law: When a statute plainly states that it replaces or supersedes pre-existing common-law rules, courts will not allow residual common‐law claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in L.B. v. G.T. clarifies that under RSA 507-B, municipal immunity bars negligence suits based on student supervision on school property. It reaffirms that “operation of premises” must implicate the physical condition or maintenance of property, and that statutory language (RSA 507-B:5) has effectively abolished all common-law negligence claims against governmental units. Moving forward, plaintiffs will need to identify statutory causes of action that fit within RSA 507-B’s narrow exceptions or petition the Legislature to amend the statute. This ruling underscores the strong policy in New Hampshire favoring municipal immunity and highlights the necessity for statutory remedies when addressing negligence by public entities.