Opinion ID: 2297501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rsa 21-p:44

Text: The plaintiff contends that under RSA 21-P:44, the Town had a duty to respond to the emergency situation created by the ice storm of December 2008 by warning motorists of the inoperable traffic lights. RSA 21-P:44 provides: In carrying out the provisions [related to Homeland Security and Emergency Management], the governor, executive heads of state agencies, and local executive officers of the political subdivisions of the state shall utilize the services, equipment, supplies, and facilities of existing departments, offices, and agencies of the state and its political subdivisions to the maximum extent practicable, and the officers and personnel of all such departments, offices, and agencies are directed to cooperate with and extend such services and facilities to the governor and to the emergency management organizations of the state upon request. The plaintiff observes that RSA 21-P:44 is part of a statutory scheme that create[s] structures to enable response to an emergency situation. He argues: The statute [RSA 21-P:44] uses the mandatory phrase `shall' and imposes the broadest requirements of acting `to the maximum extent practicable.' He contends that because [i]t was practicable for the Town to earlier address the inoperable signal[s], RSA 21-P:44 required it do so. In his reply brief, the plaintiff changes this argument somewhat by asserting that the Town violated RSA 21-P:44 by failing to use the State's services, equipment, supplies and facilities to warn motorists about the inoperable traffic lights. We need not decide whether the plaintiff's interpretation of RSA 21-P:44 is correct, for even if it is, it is a well-settled rule that to the extent two statutes conflict, the more specific statute, here RSA 231:93, controls over the general statute, RSA 21-P:44. See In the Matter of Heinrich & Curotto, 160 N.H. 650, 654-55, 7 A.3d 1158 (2010). Although RSA 21-P:44 and other provisions in RSA chapter 21-P governing Homeland Security and Emergency Management refer generally to the power, duty and authority of political subdivisions when the State has experienced certain natural and human-caused disasters, RSA 21-P:34 (Supp.2011), RSA 231:93 specifically provides that a municipality owes no duty of care with respect to class I and State-maintained portions of class II state highways.