Details

1. N.H. Rev.Stat.Ann 508:4-g (I)-(II). Actions Based on Sexual Assault and Related Offenses. A person, alleging to have been subjected to any offense under RSA 632-A or an offense under RSA 639:2, who was under 18 years of age when the alleged offense occurred, may commence a personal action based on the incident within the later of:     I. Twelve years of the person’s eighteenth birthday; or    II.  Three years of the time the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its causal relationship to the act or omission complained of.

a. 508:4-g. Actions Based on Sexual Assault and Related Offenses – implies all claims.

i. Michaud v. McAnaney, 2007 DNH 118, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71890 (D.N.H. 2007) (opinion not for publication) (§508:4-g applies to claims stemming from mother’s failure to protect daughters from abuse by step-father).

ii. Patrisso v. Sch. Admin. Unit #59-Winnisquam Reg’l Sch. Dist., 2010 DNH 2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 593 (D.N.H. 2010) (§508:4-g applies to plaintiff’s negligence based claims vs. school district).

b. BUT SEE, Pre-1986 claims subject to 6 year. SOL of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4 (1983) (pre-1986 statute); Conrad v. Hazen, 665 A.2d 372, 374-75 (N.H. 1995).

TOLLING:

1. Majority, yes 18. N.H. Rev.Stat.Ann 508:4-g (I).

2. Discovery, yes, liberal

a. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4-g(II) (accrual at “time the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its causal relationship to the act or omission complained of”).

b. Patrisso v. Sch. Admin. Unit #59-Winnisquam Reg’l Sch. Dist., 2010 DNH 2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 593, *5 (D.N.H. 2010) (not for publication) (denying defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment where triable issue of fact existed as to when plaintiff made causal connection b/t abuse and injuries)(“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered not only that he has been injured but also that his injury may have been caused by the defendant’s conduct.” McLean v. Gaudet, 769 F. Supp. 30, 30 (D.N.H. 1990) (citing Rowe v. John Deere, 130 N.H. 18, 21, 533 A.2d 375 (1987)). The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that this is a two-pronged rule requiring both prongs to be satisfied before the statute of limitations begins to run. First, a plaintiff must know or reasonably should have known that it has been injured; and second, a plaintiff must know or reasonably should have known that its injury was proximately caused by conduct of the defendant. Big League Entm’t, Inc. v. Brox Indus., 149 N.H. 480, 485, 821 A.2d 1054 (2003)”).

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 625:8 (III) (d) (“If the period prescribed in paragraph I has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced:… (d)  For any offense under RSA 632-A or for an offense under RSA 639:2, where the victim was under 18 years of age when the alleged offense occurred, within 22 years of the victim’s eighteenth birthday.

Chapter 632-A Sexual Assault and Related Offenses

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 639:2. Incest.