Experienced New Hampshire Premises Liability Attorney Fighting for You
Attorney Keith F. Diaz has spent 22 years handling cases where people were seriously injured because a property owner failed to maintain safe conditions, from black ice in untreated parking lots to wet grocery store floors with no warning signs to crumbling stairwells in apartment buildings that landlords refused to fix. He understands how property owners and their insurers use the "we didn't know" defense to avoid accountability, and he knows how to defeat it.
New Hampshire law does not require property owners to guarantee your safety. But it does require them to act with reasonable care, and when they don't, the consequences can be severe: broken bones, traumatic brain injuries, spinal damage, and chronic pain that reshapes a person's life. The NH Supreme Court has built a body of case law defining exactly what "reasonable care" means, how notice of a hazard is established, and when property owners cross the line from negligence into liability. See Robinson v. 1 Bouchard Street Realty (N.H. 2024); Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, 159 N.H. 95 (2009); Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 N.H. 571 (1999).
Below, we explain how New Hampshire premises liability law works, the three theories for proving a property owner knew about a hazard, the specific rules governing snow and ice injuries, landlord liability, the defenses property owners raise, and how Apis Law builds these cases from investigation through resolution. Every case starts with a free, no-obligation consultation. Keith will review what happened, explain your legal options, and give you an honest assessment. You pay nothing unless we win.
Serving clients throughout New Hampshire from our Goffstown and Bedford offices, including Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Hooksett, New Boston, and Peterborough.
22 years of handling NH premises liability cases | All five-star reviews from real clients | No fee unless we win — contingency basis only | Direct access to your attorney — you work with Keith, not a case manager
Understanding Premises Liability in New Hampshire
What New Hampshire Law Requires of Property Owners
New Hampshire law requires landowners, businesses, and property managers to maintain reasonably safe conditions for lawful visitors. When a dangerous condition is created, ignored, or inadequately addressed, liability may arise if someone is injured. The analysis focuses on:
-
Whether the owner created the hazard;
-
Whether the owner knew or should have known of the dangerous condition;
-
Whether reasonable steps were taken to correct or warn of the hazard;
-
The injured person’s own conduct under the comparative fault statute, RSA 507:7-d.
The Legal Standard
The foundation of every premises liability case in New Hampshire is a single legal standard: all landowners are under a duty to use reasonable care under all the circumstances in the maintenance and operation of their properties. This is the instruction a judge gives the jury in every slip-and-fall trial. See Robinson v. 1 Bouchard Street Realty (N.H. 2024); Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, 159 N.H. 95 (2009); Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552 (1976).
The test is what an ordinary prudent person would do under like or similar circumstances. The jury evaluates how the plaintiff entered the property, what the property owner knew about the hazard, and whether the owner took reasonable steps to address it. A property owner does not guarantee the safety of visitors. No liability is imposed merely because an accident happened on the property. The injured person must show that the owner was at fault.
Critically, the duty of reasonable care applies only to persons the owner should have reasonably foreseen would be exposed to a risk of harm. If the owner could not reasonably foresee any injury, there is no negligence and no liability. This foreseeability element is central to premises liability litigation in New Hampshire.
What This Means for Your Case
When Attorney Diaz evaluates a premises liability claim, he identifies the specific duty the property owner owed, the evidence showing the owner knew or should have known about the hazard, and the actions the owner failed to take. These are the same elements a jury will be asked to decide. Building the case around these established standards gives it the strongest foundation from the outset.
Proving Notice — How NH Law Holds Property Owners Accountable
Three Ways to Prove a Property Owner Knew About the Hazard
In most slip-and-fall cases, the property owner will argue that they had no idea the dangerous condition existed. Defeating that argument is the core challenge in premises liability litigation. New Hampshire law recognizes three distinct theories for proving notice, each with its own evidentiary requirements.
1. The Owner Created the Hazard
If the property owner or its employees directly caused the dangerous condition, the owner has notice by definition. For example, if a store employee mopped a floor and failed to place a wet floor sign, the owner created the hazard. No additional proof of notice is required. Under NH law, the knowledge of an employee acting within the scope of employment is imputed to the owner.
2. The Owner Had Actual Knowledge
If the property owner actually knew the hazardous condition existed at the specific time and place of the fall, actual notice is established. This can be shown through incident reports, employee testimony, surveillance footage showing a manager walking past the hazard, or maintenance logs documenting the condition.
3. The Owner Should Have Known (Constructive Notice)
This is the most common and most contested theory. Under NH law, constructive notice can be established in two ways. First, you can show that the hazardous condition existed for such a length of time that the owner should have discovered it through reasonable inspections. Second, you can show the owner knew or should have known that the type of hazard regularly occurred and created an unsafe condition, even without proving how long the specific hazard was present.
This second theory is particularly powerful in retail and grocery store cases. In Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, 159 N.H. 95 (2009), the NH Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on this theory. The court held that a store owner can have constructive notice if it knew or should have known that items such as produce regularly fell to the floor, creating unsafe conditions. The plaintiff did not need to prove exactly how long the green beans had been on the floor, the recurring nature of the hazard itself was sufficient to establish notice.
Why This Matters: Insurance companies in slip-and-fall cases almost always argue “we didn’t know.” The Rallis decision gives your attorney a powerful tool: if the hazard was the kind that regularly happens at that type of business, the owner’s claim of ignorance fails. Attorney Diaz identifies the right notice theory for your case and builds the evidence to support it.
Common Premises Liability Incidents
Winter conditions create significant hazards in parking lots, walkways, apartment complexes, and commercial entrances. Liability often depends on weather patterns, ice-melt timing, contractor practices, and the landowner’s overall approach to winter maintenance. Injuries can include fractures, traumatic brain injury, concussion, and spinal injury.
Interior Slip-and-Falls
Falls frequently occur inside stores, restaurants, and public buildings due to wet floors, spilled liquids, cleaning without signage, or unsafe transitions between flooring materials.
Retail and Grocery Store Hazards
Produce spills, leaking refrigeration units, and repeated hazards in self-service areas can trigger the mode-of-operation doctrine, reducing the burden of proving how long the hazard existed.
Unsafe Stairs and Railings
Broken steps, missing or loose handrails, and building-code violations contribute to preventable injuries. These cases may require analysis of structural integrity, lighting, and inspection history.
Apartment and Landlord Negligence
Claims arise when landlords fail to maintain common areas, lighting, walkways, and structural components. Tenants and visitors are entitled to safe, reasonably maintained premises.
Snow and Ice Liability Under NH Law
When Property Owners Are Liable for Snow and Ice Injuries
New Hampshire’s climate makes snow and ice injuries among the most common premises liability claims in the state. The legal rules governing these cases are specific and well-established.
Business Owners and Commercial Properties
A business that invites the public onto its property has a duty to use ordinary care to remove ice or snow that makes the premises likely to be hazardous. This duty arises within a reasonable time after the business owner knew or should have known of the hazardous condition. The standard is not perfection — it is reasonableness under the circumstances, considering the timing and severity of the storm, the property owner’s snow and ice treatment practices, and whether the owner conducted inspections after the storm ended. See Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 N.H. 571 (1999).
Landlords
Landlords have a duty to use ordinary care to remove ice or snow from outdoor entrances and driveways under the landlord’s control within a reasonable time after the end of a storm. This duty applies to common areas that the landlord controls. In Robinson v. 1 Bouchard Street Realty (N.H. 2024), the NH Supreme Court held that even when a lease assigns snow removal responsibility to the tenant, the landlord’s duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition still applies to non-parties such as the tenant’s employees and visitors.
Sidewalks
An owner of property adjoining a public sidewalk is generally not responsible for maintaining the sidewalk or for injuries caused by the natural accumulation of snow and ice on it. However, if the property owner altered the sidewalk in a way that benefits the property and the alteration created or contributed to the hazard, liability may apply.
Practical Insight: In snow and ice cases, timing is everything. Attorney Diaz obtains weather data, snow removal contracts, treatment logs, and deposition testimony from maintenance crews to establish whether the property owner acted within a reasonable time after conditions warranted action. Surveillance footage showing the timeline between the storm ending and the fall occurring is often the most critical piece of evidence.
Landlord Liability in New Hampshire
When Landlords Are Liable for Tenant and Visitor Injuries
New Hampshire law imposes a general duty on landlords to act as a reasonable person under all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of avoiding the risk. See Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. 388 (1973); Walls v. Oxford Management Co., 137 N.H. 653 (1993).
Duty to Maintain Common Areas
A landlord has a duty to use ordinary care to keep common areas safe. Common areas are those parts of the premises the landlord retains control over, and that may be used by all tenants — hallways, stairwells, parking lots, entrances, and shared walkways. When a landlord fails to maintain these areas and an injury results, the landlord can be held liable.
Duty to Make Repairs
A landlord who undertakes to make repairs has a duty to use reasonable care in performing them. Under RSA 540:13-d, property must be leased in a safe and habitable condition, conforming to applicable statutes, regardless of the terms of the rent. See Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004).
Lease Provisions Do Not Eliminate Liability to Third Parties
A critical point in landlord liability cases: even when a lease assigns maintenance responsibilities to the tenant, that lease provision does not protect the landlord from claims by non-parties to the lease. In Robinson v. 1 Bouchard Street Realty (N.H. 2024), the NH Supreme Court held that a lease requiring the tenant to keep the premises free from ice had no effect on the landlord’s duty to the plaintiff (the tenant’s employee). The landlord remained liable for maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition. See also Tanguay v. Marston, 127 N.H. 572 (1986).
Key Takeaway: If you were injured in an apartment complex, rental property, or commercial building, the landlord may be liable even if the lease says the tenant is responsible for maintenance. Attorney Diaz reviews the lease terms, maintenance history, and the landlord’s actual practices to determine all potentially liable parties.
Legal Challenges in Slip-and-Fall Cases
Premises liability matters require precise evidentiary development. Key issues include:
• Notice: Proving how long the hazardous condition existed.
• Surveillance Footage: Determining whether video exists and ensuring preservation before routine deletion.
• Maintenance Logs: Reviewing snow-treatment logs, inspection records, and cleaning schedules.
• Witness Accounts: Identifying individuals who observed the hazard or the fall.
• Medical Causation: Establishing injury severity through orthopedic, neurological, or emergency-care records.
• Comparative Fault: Anticipating insurer arguments that the injured party failed to observe the hazard.
• Building Codes: International building codes for business and residential structures are key to establishing property owner duties.
Insurers frequently attempt to minimize liability by arguing a lack of notice or shifting blame to the injured person. These arguments require a focused review of the evidence and the property owner’s actual maintenance practices.
Obviously Unsafe Conditions and Comparative Fault
Defenses Property Owners Raise — and How We Address Them
The “Open and Obvious” Defense
Property owners frequently argue that the hazardous condition was so obvious that any reasonable person would have seen it and avoided it. Under New Hampshire law, if an unsafe condition is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to observe it, the property owner may not have a duty to warn. However, this defense has significant limits. The obviousness of a hazard does not automatically eliminate liability — it is one factor the jury considers. A property owner who knows about a recurring hazard cannot simply leave it in place and rely on the argument that visitors should have noticed it. The question remains whether the owner acted with reasonable care under all the circumstances.
Comparative Fault (RSA 507:7-d)
Insurers routinely argue that the injured person was partly at fault — for not watching where they were walking, for wearing inappropriate footwear, or for failing to avoid the hazard. Under New Hampshire’s modified comparative fault law, you can still recover damages as long as your fault does not exceed 50%. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are found more than 50% at fault, you recover nothing.
Insurance adjusters push hard on comparative fault in premises liability cases because even a small shift in the fault percentage dramatically affects the payout. Attorney Diaz anticipates these arguments from the start and builds the factual record to demonstrate that the property owner’s negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
Apis Law’s Approach to Premises Liability Litigation
Apis Law conducts a methodical investigation from the outset. The process includes:
• Immediate evidence preservation, including letters requesting surveillance retention;
• Site inspections documenting weather conditions, lighting, structural details, and surface defects;
• Collection and analysis of maintenance logs, snow-removal contracts, and inspection records;
• Review of 911 calls, witness statements, and incident reports;
• Coordination with orthopedic, biomechanical, or engineering experts when appropriate;
• Strategic litigation focused on establishing notice, challenging maintenance practices, and proving causation.
This approach ensures that each case proceeds with a clear evidentiary record and a focused strategy aligned with New Hampshire law. Claims must be asserted promptly to comply with the three-year statute of limitations.
Recent Case Insight
This case study explains how Apis Law secured a $275,000 settlement despite the absence of eyewitnesses, video evidence, or an OSHA investigation, and despite a six-year delay in reconstructing key facts. The result was achieved through extensive litigation, including nine depositions, four experts, and the reduction of a nearly $197,000 workers’ compensation lien to $55,000, thereby substantially increasing the client’s net recovery.
Apis Law represented a tradesperson who suffered a severe leg injury when more than 700 pounds of tempered-glass panels collapsed inside an unfinished hotel room on a multi-employer construction project. With no witnesses, no surveillance footage, and construction progressing rapidly after the incident, the case required a complete reconstruction of the hazard through documents, architectural plans, safety records, and multidisciplinary expert analysis. Defense attempts to shift the blame were countered through physics modeling, safety expert testimony, and a detailed examination of the general contractor’s control over site conditions.
A complete narrative of the litigation strategy, expert modeling, lien reduction, and final settlement is available here: New Hampshire Construction Accident Lawyer Settlement. Additional case studies can be found on the Apis Law Case Results page for readers seeking further examples of how complex personal injury matters are litigated in New Hampshire.
Individuals injured in a slip-and-fall should take the following steps:
-
Photograph the scene immediately, before conditions change.
-
Report the incident in writing to the property owner or manager.
-
Preserve footwear and clothing;
-
Seek prompt medical evaluation and follow recommended treatment;
-
Avoid giving statements to insurers until after legal consultation.
Documentation created in the hours following the incident is often critical to the outcome of a premises liability case.
About the Author
Keith F. Diaz, Esq. | New Hampshire Bar No. 15831
Attorney Keith F. Diaz has practiced law in New Hampshire since 2003. He began his career as a criminal prosecutor in Rockingham County before transitioning to civil litigation in 2005. Today he represents individuals in personal injury and employment law matters throughout Southern New Hampshire. He is admitted to practice before the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the New Hampshire Superior and Circuit Courts, and the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He founded Apis Law in 2022.
Call Now 603-785-1013
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know if a property owner is liable for a slip-and-fall injury?
Under NH law, all landowners must use reasonable care in maintaining their property. Liability depends on whether the owner created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it through reasonable inspections. The NH Supreme Court has held that constructive notice can be established either by showing the hazard existed long enough to be discovered or by showing the type of hazard regularly occurred at that location. See Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, 159 N.H. 95 (2009). Evidence such as surveillance footage, maintenance logs, weather data, and witness statements is used to establish notice and fault.
Are snow and ice injuries treated differently in New Hampshire?
Yes. Business owners must exercise ordinary care to remove ice or snow within a reasonable time after becoming aware of, or having reason to know of, the hazard. See Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 N.H. 571 (1999). Landlords must remove snow and ice from common areas within a reasonable time after a storm ends. Importantly, even when a lease assigns snow removal to the tenant, the landlord’s duty to non-parties (such as the tenant’s employees and visitors) remains intact. See Robinson v. 1 Bouchard Street Realty (N.H. 2024). Weather data, treatment logs, and contractor practices are central to these claims.
What should I do immediately after a slip-and-fall?
Photograph the scene before conditions change — this is the single most important step. Report the incident in writing to the property owner or manager. Preserve the footwear and clothing you were wearing. Get the names and contact information of any witnesses. Seek medical evaluation promptly, even if your symptoms seem minor. Many fall injuries, including concussions and soft tissue damage, worsen over time. Avoid giving statements to the property owner’s insurance company before consulting an attorney. Documentation created in the hours following the incident is often the most critical evidence in a premises liability case.
How long do I have to file a premises liability claim?
Under RSA 508:4, you have three years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit in New Hampshire. If you miss this deadline, your case will be dismissed regardless of how strong your evidence is. Filing an insurance claim or negotiating with an adjuster does not stop this deadline — only filing an actual lawsuit preserves your right to compensation. Contact an attorney well before the deadline to ensure your claim is properly investigated and preserved.
What evidence matters most in slip-and-fall cases?
Surveillance footage, incident reports, maintenance records, snow and ice logs, and witness statements are central to establishing notice and fault.
Can I still recover compensation if I was partially at fault?
Yes. Under New Hampshire’s modified comparative fault law (RSA 507:7-d), you can recover damages as long as your share of fault does not exceed 50%. Your award is reduced by your percentage of responsibility. For example, if you are found 20% at fault and your damages total $100,000, you would recover $80,000. If your fault exceeds 50%, you recover nothing. Insurance companies aggressively argue comparative fault in slip-and-fall cases to reduce or eliminate payouts. An experienced attorney counters these arguments with evidence of the property owner’s negligence.
New Hampshire Litigation
Why Clients Choose Apis Law
No case managers. No paralegal runaround. Keith F. Diaz handles your case personally and returns your calls the same day.
22
Years of Experience
2
Practice Areas
1
Attorney on Your Case
📍
New Hampshire Litigation Experience
Decades of experience in New Hampshire courts — from superior court to federal district court — providing practical insight into local rules, procedures, and judicial expectations across every county.
✅
Focused Practice Areas
Concentrated practice in personal injury, wrongful termination, and workplace discrimination — enabling precise issue spotting and effective case development.
📋
Evidence-Driven Case Strategy
Every matter is built on documentation, witness testimony, expert analysis, and a realistic assessment of how courts, insurers, and opposing counsel evaluate risk. Strategy grounded in facts and law — not assumptions.
👨🏾⚖️
Direct Access to Your Attorney
Work directly with the attorney handling your case. No layers of case managers or junior associates. Communication is direct, timely, and structured to support informed decision-making.
⚖️
Prepared for Settlement or Trial
Cases are developed with litigation in mind from day one. Whether a matter resolves through negotiation, mediation, or trial, Apis Law prepares each case as if it will be presented in court.
📞
Contact Apis Law
If you are looking for an experienced New Hampshire litigation lawyer to evaluate a personal injury claim or employment law dispute, Apis Law is prepared to review your case and explain your legal options.