Opinion
No. 4860.
Argued November 1, 1960.
Decided November 30, 1960.
1. The Militia act provision (RSA 110-A:77 I (supp)) that "any person injured in his person or property by the national guard shall have the right by petition brought in the superior court for the county wherein such person resides or where the injury was suffered to compensation for damages so sustained . . ." was construed, in the light of other provisions of the act, as primarily avenue statute and affords relief to nonresidents who suffered damage outside the state as the result of a collision with National Guard motor vehicles.
PETITION, for damages under RSA 110-A:77 I (supp) resulting from a motor vehicle accident in Canton, Massachusetts on August 16, 1958. The plaintiffs are the driver, a passenger and a corporate owner of the vehicle which was involved in a collision with military trucks of the New Hampshire National Guard driven by the defendants. The State of New Hampshire by its Attorney General appearing specially as the real party in interest moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs do not reside and the injuries were not suffered in the county in which the suit was brought. The issues of law raised by the petition and motion to dismiss were reserved and transferred without ruling by Morris, J.
Sullivan Gregg and Sherman D. Horton, Jr. (Mr. Horton orally), for the plaintiffs.
Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General and William J. O'Neil, Assistant Attorney General (Mr. O'Neil orally), for the defendants.
The question presented in this case is whether RSA 110-A:77 I (supp) permits nonresidents to obtain compensation for damages for injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident occurring in another state and involving the New Hampshire National Guard.
This case is governed by Leary v. McSwiney, decided this day. 103 N.H. 85, 88. The fact that the present case involves damage caused by a military truck rather than a military aircraft is immaterial. The plaintiffs are entitled to maintain their petition and this makes it unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants' motion to dismiss was filed untimely.
Remanded.
All concurred.