Opinion ID: 2362888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability Condition

Text: As stated above, the petitioner challenges the liability condition, which releases the Town from liability arising from the maintenance, repair or use of Mark Street Extension. She argues that this condition has no logical basis for application to a proposed driveway from a public street that [the Town] maintains. The Town argues that the liability condition is reasonable because it mirrors the requirements of RSA 674:41, I(c) (Supp.2006), and further, that the condition is nearly identical to the variance condition upheld in Wentworth Hotel, Inc., 112 N.H. at 28, 287 A.2d 615, requiring the hotel to assume liability for all policing and maintenance of the buildings and premises, and save the town harmless for any expense resulting from its failure to do so. We find this condition to be reasonable. At the time the ZBA granted the variance, it could have reasonably concluded that, since the other lot owners in the subdivision would be able to use the petitioner's driveway to access the unfinished Mark Street Extension in order to reach their lots, the Town faced potential liability in the event of an accident. As the superior court noted, The ZBA had safety concerns about the use of the driveway and the `paper street' by all of the lot owners. The liability condition protects the Town in the face of this possibility. We recognize that circumstances may change in the event that Mark Street Extension is completed. We express no opinion, however, as to whether the condition would continue to be reasonable under such circumstances. Affirmed.