Ioannidis et al v. Polaris Industries Inc. et al

U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T
F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AMP S H I R E
Ko n s t a n t in I o a n n id is a n d
E r ik a D ilb a r ia n
v. 	Ca se No. 1:24-cv-30-P B-AJ
Opin ion No. 2026 DNH 061
P o la r is I n d u s t r ie s I n c ., e t a l.
ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R
Kon st a n t in Ioa n n idis wa s in ju r ed wh ile pa r t icipa t in g in a gu ided
sn owm obile t ou r . H e a n d h is wife, E r ika Dilba r ia n , su ed P ola r is In du st r ies
In c., P ola r is E xper ien ce, LLC, a n d Win t er F u n , In c. for n egligen ce, st r ict
pr odu ct lia bilit y, br ea ch of wa r r a n t y, viola t ion of t h e New H a m psh ir e
Con su m er P r ot ect ion Act , a n d loss of con sor t iu m . Th e defen da n t s h a ve
r espon ded wit h m ot ion s for su m m a r y ju dgm en t a r gu in g t h a t t h e pla in t iffs’
cla im s a r e ba r r ed by t h e excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s t h ey sign ed befor e t h ey
pa r t icipa t ed in t h e t ou r . Th e defen da n t s a lso a r gu e t h a t t h e pla in t iffs’
pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im fa ils even if t h e excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s a r e
u n en for cea ble beca u se t h e defen da n t s n eit h er m a n u fa ct u r ed n or sold t h e
a llegedly defect ive h elm et on wh ich t h a t cla im is ba sed.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 22

2
I . 	B AC K G R O U N D
Win t er F u n is a “P ola r is Adven t u r e Ou t fit t er .” Doc. 40-1 a t 6. As a n
ou t fit t er , Win t er F u n en t er ed in t o a n a gr eem en t wit h P ola r is E xper ien ce,
LLC t o “pr ovide cu st om er s wit h r ides a n d t ou r exper ien ces u sin g P ola r is
veh icles.” Id. P u r su a n t t o t h e a gr eem en t , P ola r is su pplies t h e veh icles u sed
on t h e t ou r s a n d Win t er F u n su pplies a n y r equ ir ed sa fet y equ ipm en t ,
in clu din g h elm et s.1 Id.
On J a n u a r y 28, 2021, Ioa n n idis a n d Dilba r ia n booked a “P ola r is
Adven t u r es” gu ided sn owm obile r ide for t h e n ext da y. Id. a t 6-7. Th e
pla in t iffs u n der st ood wh en t h ey booked t h e t ou r t h a t t h e defen da n t s “a gr eed
t o pr ovide a ll n ecessa r y equ ipm en t , in clu din g t h e sn owm obile it self, ou t door
wea t h er gea r , a n d a h elm et , a n d t h en lea d a gr ou p on a gu ided sn owm obile
r ide.” Doc. 1 a t 13. On t h e da y t h a t t h e pla in t iffs booked t h e t ou r , Win t er F u n
sen t t h em a n em a il con fir m in g t h eir r eser va t ion . Doc. 40-1 a t 7; see a lso Doc.
40-3 a t 1-4. Th a t em a il st a t ed, in bold let t er s, t h a t “[a ]ll r ider s n eed t o
com plet e t h e wa iver s a n d ch eck-in pa per wor k” a n d “[a ]ll r ider s n eed t o wa t ch
t h e sa fet y video” befor e a r r ivin g a t t h eir office for t h e t ou r . Doc. 40-3 a t 1, 3.
1 	P ola r is E xper ien ce a ppea r s t o be a su bsidia r y of P ola r is In du st r ies. Th e
pla in t iffs a llege t h a t P ola r is E xper ien ce a n d Win t er F u n a r e join t ven t u r er s.
Doc. 1 a t 13. Win t er F u n con t en ds t h a t it wor ks wit h P ola r is E xper ien ce a s
a n in depen den t con t r a ct or . Doc. 40-1 a t 6.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 22

3
Bot h pla in t iffs followed Win t er F u n ’s dir ect ion s a n d com plet ed a “Ren t a l
Agr eem en t ” a n d a “Volu n t a r y Wa iver , Con sen t , Relea se, a n d H old H a r m less
Agr eem en t .”2 Doc. 39-3 a t 5; see a lso Doc. 39-5.
Th e Volu n t a r y Wa iver con t a in s a ser ies of excu lpa t or y cla u ses,
in clu din g t h e followin g:
R I D I N G I S VO L U N T AR Y; YO U AR E N O T R E Q U I R E D T O
P AR T I C I P AT E .
In con sider a t ion for bein g a llowed t o r en t , dr ive, r ide in a n d/or
u t ilize a n sn owm obile . . . I a gr ee t o a ssu m e a ll r isks, wa ive a ll
cla im s, r elea se a ll lia bilit y, a n d defen d a n d h old Win t er F u n In c
DBA Nor t h ea st Sn owm obile a n d ATV Ren t a ls (“Ou t fit t er ”) a n d
P ola r is In du st r ies In c. (“P ola r is”), t h eir dir ect or s, officer s, a gen t s,
a ffilia t es, su bsidia r ies 	a n d 	pa r en t 	com pa n ies, h a r m less 	t o t h e
fu llest ext en t a llowed by la w.
I 	a m 	a wa r e 	of a n d 	volu n t a r ily 	a ssu m e 	t h e 	D AN G E R S 	AN D
R I S KS O F 	S E R I O U S I N J U R Y, D AMAG E , O R 	D E AT H 	t h a t
exist in m y u se of t h e veh icles a n d equ ipm en t wh ich cou ld be or
m a y be ca u sed by loss of veh icles con t r ol, collision s, m ech a n ica l
fa ilu r es, t r a il con dit ion s, m y own n egligen t a ct s, t h e n egligen t a ct s
of ot h er r ider s, a n d t h e pot en t ia l n egligen ce of t h e Ou t fit t er a n d
P ola r is, in clu din g t h e fa ilu r e t o a dequ a t ely scr een , t r a in , wa r n , or
ot h er wise pr ot ect m e fr om a ll t h ese r isks.
I 	AG R E E 	T O 	WAI VE 	T O 	T H E 	F U L L E S T 	E XT E N T
AL L O WE D B Y L AW AN Y AN D AL L C L AI MS O F AN Y KI N D
t h a t 	I 	h a ve or 	m a y h a ve in 	t h e fu t u r e r ela t in g t o t h e Ren t a l
Oppor t u n it y, wh et h er 	dir ect ly or 	by su br oga t ion 	or 	ot h er wise,
a ga in st 	t h e Ou t fit t er , P ola r is, a n y P ola r is dea ler sh ip, in du st r y
a ssocia t ion , a n d/or 	a n y of t h eir 	dir ect or s, officer s, su bsidia r ies,
2 	I r efer t o t h e Ren t a l Agr eem en t a n d t h e Volu n t a r y Wa iver t oget h er a s
t h e ”E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s.‘
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 22

4
a ffilia t es, em ployees, a gen t s, su ccessor s or a ssign s (collect ively,
“Ren t a l Oppor t u n it y Spon sor s”).
I 	AG R E E 	T O 	R E L E AS E 	T H E 	R E N T AL 	O P P O R T U N I T Y
S P O N S O R 	F R O M 	AN Y AN D 	AL L 	L I AB I L I T Y for 	a n y loss,
da m a ge, expen se or in ju r y (in clu din g dea t h ) t h a t I or m y n ext of
kin 	m a y 	in cu r 	r esu lt in g 	fr om 	m y 	pa r t icipa t ion 	in 	t h e 	Ren t a l
Oppor t u n it y. I u n der st a n d t h is wa iver a n d r elea se does n ot ext en d
t o 	in t en t ion a lly 	wr on gfu l 	a ct s 	on 	t h e 	pa r t 	of 	t h e 	Ren t a l
Oppor t u n it y Spon sor s.
I AG R E E 	AN D U N D E R S T AN D t h a t , on beh a lf of m yself, m y
per son a l r epr esen t a t ives a n d m y h eir s, I AM R E L I N Q U I S H I N G
AN Y AN D AL L R I G H T S I N O W H AVE O R MAY H AVE I N
T H E F U T U R E T O S U E t h e Ren t a l Oppor t u n it y Spon sor s for a n y
a n d a ll in ju r y, da m a ge, or dea t h I m a y su ffer a r isin g fr om t h e
veh icle 	or 	it s 	equ ipm en t , 	or 	pa r t icipa t ion 	in 	t h e 	Ren t a l
Oppor t u n it y, 	in clu din g 	cla im s 	on 	t h e 	Ren t a l 	Oppor t u n it y
Spon sor ’s n egligen ce.
Doc. 39-5 a t 2-3. Th e Ren t a l Agr eem en t fu r t h er st a t es t h a t :
Th e 	u n der sign ed 	h er eby 	r en t s 	fr om 	Win t er 	F u n 	In c . 	. 	. 	t h e
sn owm obile 	(“veh icle”) a n d/or 	r ela t ed 	equ ipm en t 	for 	a 	lim it ed
per iod of t im e, u pon t h e followin g t er m s a n d con dit ion s.
N O WAR R AN T Y – I N H E R E N T L Y D AN G E R O U S AC T I VI T Y
– N O I N S U R AN C E P R O VI D E D
Ou t fit t er m a kes n o wa r r a n t y of a n y kin d, n a t u r e or descr ipt ion ,
expr ess or 	im plied, a s t o t h e qu a lit y a n d m a n u fa ct u r e, sa fet y,
dr iva bilit y, or fit n ess for a n y pa r t icu la r pu r pose of a n y veh icle or
equ ipm en t cover ed by t h is a gr eem en t . I, t h e u n der sign ed, a ccept
m y veh icle or ot h er equ ipm en t pr ovider by Ou t fit t er in it s “a s is”
con dit ion wit h a ll fa u lt s. I h er eby a ckn owledge t h a t t h e veh icle is
a da n ger ou s a ct ivit y, wit h a h igh r isk of ser iou s bodily in ju r y or
dea t h 	t o on eself or 	ot h er s . . . I per son a lly a ccept 	a ll r isks a n d
lia bilit ies of t h is a ct ivit y . . . I u n der st a n d t h a t by execu t in g t h is
docu m en t I a m givin g u p im por t a n t lega l r igh t s . . .
Id. a t 4.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 4 of 22

5
Befor e com m en cin g t h eir t ou r , t h e pla in t iffs wa t ch ed a sa fet y video
t h a t in st r u ct ed t h em t o “oper a t e [t h e sn owm obile] . . . on ly t o t h e lim it s of
t h eir a bilit y” a n d “r eview t h e sa fet y wa r n in gs” on t h e sn owm obile. Doc. 40-4
a t 107. Th e video a lso wa r n ed t h a t “im pr oper u se of t h e sn owm obile ca n lea d
t o sever e in ju r y or dea t h .” Id. a t 107. Win t er F u n em ployees a ddit ion a lly ga ve
t h e pla in t iffs a n “or a l sa fet y br iefin g” befor e t h e r ide bega n . Id. a t 108-09.
Ioa n n idis a n d Dilba r ia n wer e given h elm et s t o wea r wh ile on t h e t ou r .
Id. a t 111. Ioa n n idis’s h elm et bega n t o fog u p a s soon a s h e pu t it on . Id. a t
119. Wh en h e com pla in ed, a Win t er F u n em ployee t old h im t o “cr a ck t h e
visor ,” bu t t h e pr oblem per sist ed. Id. a t 111; Doc. 1 a t 14. Sh or t ly a ft er t h e
t ou r bega n , Ioa n n idis wa s sever ely in ju r ed wh en h e cr a sh ed h is sn owm obile
in t o a t r ee a ft er a cceler a t in g fr om a st op sign . Id.; Doc. 40-4 a t 141-49. H e
con t en ds t h a t t h e foggy h elm et ca u sed t h e cr a sh . Doc. 1 a t 14.
Th e pla in t iffs or igin a lly br ou gh t t h is a ct ion in New H a m psh ir e st a t e
cou r t . Doc. 1 a t 1. Th ey a dva n ced five cou n t s: (I) n egligen ce a n d n egligen t
m isr epr esen t a t ion ; (II) st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y; (III) br ea ch of wa r r a n t y;
(IV) viola t ion s of t h e New H a m psh ir e Con su m er P r ot ect ion Act (“CP A”), RSA
§ 358-A:2 et seq.; a n d (V) a loss of con sor t iu m . Id. a t 14-19. Th e P ola r is
defen da n t s r em oved t h e a ct ion t o feder a l cou r t ba sed on diver sit y of
cit izen sh ip. Id. a t 2-7. Th e P ola r is defen da n t s a n d Win t er F u n la t er filed
t h ese sepa r a t e m ot ion s for su m m a r y ju dgm en t . Doc. 39; Doc. 40.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 5 of 22

6
I I . 	S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W
Su m m a r y ju dgm en t is a ppr opr ia t e wh en t h e r ecor d r evea ls “n o gen u in e
dispu t e a s t o a n y m a t er ia l fa ct a n d t h e m ova n t is en t it led t o ju dgm en t a s a
m a t t er of la w.” F ed. R. Civ. P . 56(a ); Ta n g v. Cit izen s Ba n k, N.A., 821 F .3d
206, 215 (1st Cir . 2016). In t h is con t ext , a “m a t er ia l fa ct ” is on e t h a t h a s t h e
“pot en t ia l t o a ffect t h e ou t com e of t h e su it .” Ch er ka ou i v. Cit y of Qu in cy, 877
F .3d 14, 23 (1st Cir . 2017) (qu ot in g Sá n ch ez v. Alva r a do, 101 F .3d 223, 227
(1st Cir . 1996)). A “gen u in e dispu t e” exist s if a fa ct fin der cou ld r esolve t h e
dispu t ed fa ct in t h e n on m ova n t ’s fa vor . E llis v. F id. Mgm t . Tr . Co., 883 F .3d
1, 7 (1st Cir . 2018).
Th e m ova n t bea r s t h e in it ia l bu r den of pr esen t in g eviden ce t h a t “it
believes dem on st r a t e t h e a bsen ce of a gen u in e issu e of m a t er ia l fa ct .” Celot ex
Cor p. v. Ca t r et t , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); a ccor d Ir obe v. U .S. Dep’t of Agr ic.,
890 F .3d 371, 377 (1st Cir . 2018). On ce t h e m ova n t h a s pr oper ly pr esen t ed
su ch eviden ce, t h e bu r den sh ift s t o t h e n on m ova n t t o design a t e “specific fa ct s
sh owin g t h a t t h er e is a gen u in e issu e for t r ia l,” Celot ex, 477 U.S. a t 324, a n d
t o “dem on st r a t e t h a t a t r ier of fa ct cou ld r ea son a bly r esolve t h a t issu e in [it s]
fa vor ,” Ir obe, 890 F .3d a t 377 (a lt er a t ion in or igin a l) (qu ot in g Bor ges ex r el.
S.M.B.W. v. Ser r a n o-Iser n , 605 F .3d 1, 5 (1st Cir . 2010)). If t h e n on m ova n t
fa ils t o a ddu ce su ch eviden ce on wh ich a r ea son a ble fa ct fin der cou ld ba se a
fa vor a ble ver dict , t h e m ot ion m u st be gr a n t ed. Celot ex, 477 U.S. a t 324. In
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 6 of 22

7
con sider in g t h e eviden ce, I m u st dr a w a ll r ea son a ble in fer en ces in t h e
n on m ovin g pa r t y’s fa vor . Th er ia u lt v. Gen esis H ea lt h Ca r e LLC, 890 F .3d
342, 348 (1st Cir . 2018).
I I I . 	AN AL YS I S
Th e defen da n t s a r gu e t h a t a ll of t h e pla in t iffs’ cla im s a r e ba r r ed by t h e
E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s. Th ey a lso con t en d t h a t t h e pla in t iffs’ st r ict pr odu ct
lia bilit y cla im fa ils even if t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s a r e u n en for cea ble
beca u se t h e defen da n t s n eit h er m a n u fa ct u r ed n or sold t h e a llegedly defect ive
h elm et . I exa m in e ea ch a r gu m en t in t u r n .
A. 	T h e E x c u lp a t o r y C o n t r a c t s
Th e pa r t ies h a ve differ en t views a s t o t h e la w t h a t gover n s t h e
en for cea bilit y of excu lpa t or y con su m er con t r a ct s in lea se a gr eem en t s for
goods. Th e defen da n t s ba se t h eir con t en t ion t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s
a r e en for cea ble on a well-developed body of New H a m psh ir e com m on la w
t h a t a ddr esses t h e en for cea bilit y of excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s gen er a lly. Un der
t h a t la w, excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s ca n be u sed t o pr eclu de r em edies t h a t wou ld
ot h er wise be a va ila ble t o a n in ju r ed pa r t y on ly if: “(1) t h ey do n ot viola t e
pu blic policy; (2) t h e pla in t iff u n der st ood t h e im por t of t h e a gr eem en t or a
r ea son a ble per son in h is posit ion wou ld h a ve u n der st ood t h e im por t of t h e
a gr eem en t ; a n d (3) t h e pla in t iff’s cla im s wer e wit h in t h e con t em pla t ion of t h e
pa r t ies wh en t h ey execu t ed t h e con t r a ct .” Dea n v. Ma cDon a ld, 147 N.H . 263,
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 7 of 22

8
266-67 (2001) (cit in g Ba r n es v. N.H . Ka r t in g Assoc., In c., 128 N.H . 102,
106-07 (1986)). Th e defen da n t s r ely on t h e com m on la w t est in a r gu in g t h a t
t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s a r e en for cea ble a n d ba r a ll of t h e pla in t iffs’ cla im s.
Th e pla in t iffs r espon d by cla im in g t h a t t h e com m on la w t est h a s been
displa ced in ca ses in volvin g lea se a gr eem en t s for goods by
RSA § 382-A:2A-503.3 Sect ion 503 is pa r t of Ar t icle 2A of New H a m psh ir e's
Un ifor m Com m er cia l Code, wh ich gover n s lea se a gr eem en t s for per son a l
pr oper t y. Su bsect ion 3 of t h a t sect ion pr ovides in per t in en t pa r t t h a t a n y
“[l]im it a t ion , a lt er a t ion , or exclu sion of con sequ en t ia l da m a ges for in ju r y t o
t h e per son in t h e ca se of con su m er goods is pr im a fa cie u n con scion a ble.”
RSA § 382-A:2A-503(3). Th e pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t § 503(3) a pplies t o a ll of
t h eir cla im s beca u se t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s a r e pa r t of a n a gr eem en t
a m on g t h e pa r t ies t h a t in clu ded a lea se of con su m er goods t o t h e pla in t iffs for
u se on t h e t ou r . Th er efor e, t h ey a r gu e t h a t § 503(3)’s u n con scion a bilit y t est ,
n ot t h e com m on la w t est , sh ou ld be u sed t o det er m in e wh et h er t h e
E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s a r e en for cea ble.4
3 	F or t h e sa ke of br evit y, I h er ea ft er r efer t o RSA § 382-A:2A-503 a s
”§ 503.‘
4 	In a n a lyzin g t h is a r gu m en t , I do n ot m ea n t o im ply t h a t t h e com m on
la w t est a n d t h e t est r equ ir ed by § 503(3) a r e m a t er ia lly differ en t . Th a t issu e
h a s n ot been br iefed.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 8 of 22

9
I begin by a ssessin g t h e pla in t iffs’ con t en t ion t h a t § 503(3) en t ir ely
displa ces t h e com m on la w t h a t gover n s t h e en for cea bilit y of excu lpa t or y
con su m er con t r a ct s. Th en , I sepa r a t ely con sider h ow t h e E xcu lpa t or y
Con t r a ct s a ffect ea ch of t h e pla in t iffs’ cla im s for r elief.
1. Sect ion 382-A:2A-503(3)
I a m u n per su a ded t h a t RSA § 382-A:2A-503(3) sweeps a s br oa dly a s
t h e pla in t iffs cla im . F ir st , § 503(3) is ca st a s a n except ion t o t h e gen er a l r u le
set for t h in § 503(1) t h a t a lea se “m a y lim it or a lt er t h e m ea su r e of da m a ges
r ecover a ble u n der t h is Ar t icle.” RSA § 382-A:2A-503(1) (em ph a sis a dded).
Beca u se t h e gen er a l r u le in § 503(1) r ea ch es on ly lim it a t ion s on da m a ges t h a t
a r e r ecover a ble u n der Ar t icle 2A, it is difficu lt t o see h ow § 503(3) ca n be r ea d
t o r ea ch ot h er t ypes of da m a ge cla im s t h a t a r e n ot a u t h or ized u n der Ar t icle
2A. Secon d, t h is r ea din g of § 503 is r ein for ced by t h e except ion r ecogn ized in
§ 503(3) it self beca u se t h a t except ion expr essly cover s on ly lim it a t ion s on
cla im s for “con sequ en t ia l da m a ges,” wh ich is a t er m t ypica lly u sed t o descr ibe
da m a ges t h a t a r e r ecover a ble for br ea ch of con t r a ct or br ea ch of wa r r a n t y.
See e.g. Sa lem E n g’g & Con st r . Cor p. v. Lon don der r y Sch . Dist ., 122 N.H .
379, 383-84 (1982) (descr ibin g con sequ en t ia l da m a ges a s a t ype of da m a ges
t h a t ca n be r ecogn ized for br ea ch of con t r a ct a n d expla in in g t h a t “t h e scope of
for eseea bilit y wit h r espect t o da m a ges is n a r r ower in con t r a ct ca ses t h a n in
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 9 of 22

10
t or t ca ses”). Th u s, I con clu de t h a t § 503(3)’s lim it a t ion on ly a pplies t o cla im s
br ou gh t u n der Ar t icle 2A.
In t h is ca se, t h e pla in t iffs’ on ly cla im a r isin g u n der Ar t icle 2A is t h eir
cla im for br ea ch of wa r r a n t y. Accor din gly, I r eject t h e pla in t iffs’ a r gu m en t
t h a t t h e en for cea bilit y of t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s a s t o t h eir ot h er cla im s
sh ou ld a lso be det er m in ed u sin g § 503(3) a n d a pply t h a t pr ovision on ly t o t h e
pla in t iffs’ br ea ch of wa r r a n t y cla im .
2. 	Negligen ce Cla im
Th e defen da n t s r ely on t h e com m on la w t est t o a r gu e t h a t t h e
E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s ba r t h e pla in t iffs’ n egligen ce cla im beca u se: (1) t h e
con t r a ct s pla in ly cover t h e n egligen ce cla im ; (2) a r ea son a ble per son in t h e
pla in t iffs’ posit ion wou ld h a ve u n der st ood t h e con t r a ct s; a n d (3) t h e con t r a ct s
a r e n ot con t r a r y t o pu blic policy, a s “n o specia l r ela t ion sh ip exist ed a m on g
t h e pa r t ies a n d t h er e wa s n o ot h er dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power .” Ba r n es,
128 N.H . a t 106. Th e pla in t iffs r espon d solely by con t en din g t h a t t h e
E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s wer e pr esen t ed t o t h e pla in t iffs on a
“t a ke-it -or -lea ve-it ” ba sis on ly a ft er t h e cost of t h e t ou r h a d becom e
n on r efu n da ble, cr ea t in g a dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power a m on g t h e pa r t ies
a n d m a kin g t h e con t r a ct s u n en for cea ble. Th u s, t h e on ly r ea l issu e h er e is
wh et h er t h e “t a ke-it -or -lea ve-it ” n a t u r e of t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s cr ea t ed
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 10 of 22

11
a dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power a m on g t h e pa r t ies wh ich wou ld r en der t h em
con t r a r y t o pu blic policy.
Bot h t h is Cou r t a n d t h e New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t h a ve
pr eviou sly a ddr essed wh et h er r ecr ea t ion a l a ct ivit y wa iver s a r e con t r a r y t o
pu blic policy. In Lizzol v. Br ot h er s P r oper t y Ma n a gem en t Cor por a t ion , a
ju dge on t h is Cou r t fou n d t h a t t h er e wa s n o dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power
bet ween pa r t ies wh o en t er ed in t o a wa iver befor e a sn owm obilin g t ou r ,
despit e t h e fa ct t h a t t h e pla in t iffs n eeded t o sign t h a t wa iver in or der t o
pa r t icipa t e in t h e t ou r . 2016 DNH 199, 2016 WL 6459570, a t *8 (D.N.H .
Oct . 31, 2016). Th er e, t h e Cou r t expla in ed t h a t “t h e pla in t iffs wer e ‘u n der n o
ph ysica l or econ om ic com pu lsion t o sign t h e r elea se,’ a n d ‘[s]in ce t h e
defen da n t s’ ser vice [wa s] n ot a n essen t ia l on e, t h e defen da n t s h a d n o
a dva n t a ge of ba r ga in in g st r en gt h ’ over t h e pla in t iffs or ot h er s wh o sou gh t t o
pa r t icipa t e in t h e sn owm obile lesson a n d t ou r .” Id. (fir st a lt er a t ion in
or igin a l) (qu ot in g Ba r n es, 128 N.H . a t 108). In Ba r n es, t h e New H a m psh ir e
Su pr em e Cou r t sim ila r ly det er m in ed t h a t t h e pla in t iff wa s u n der “n o
ph ysica l or econ om ic com pu lsion ” t o sign a r elea se of lia bilit y, even t h ou gh h e
wa s r equ ir ed t o sign it in or der t o u se t h e r a cet r a ck a t issu e. 128 N.H . a t 108.
An d, in McGr a t h v. SNH Developm en t , In c., t h e cou r t fou n d n o dispa r it y in
ba r ga in in g power despit e t h e fa ct t h a t t h e pla in t iff h a d t o sign a wa iver in
or der t o r eceive h er sea son pa ss a t a ski m ou n t a in . 158 N.H . 540, 544-45
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 11 of 22

12
(2009). In a ll t h r ee ca ses, t h e cou r t s det er m in ed t h a t t h e wa iver con t r a ct s
wer e n ot con t r a r y t o pu blic policy even t h ou gh t h ey wer e pr esen t ed t o t h e
pla in t iffs on a “t a ke-it -or -lea ve-it ” ba sis.
Th e on ly fa ct t h a t differ en t ia t es t h e pr esen t ca se fr om t h ese ca ses is
t h a t h er e t h e pla in t iffs wer e n ot n ot ified t h a t t h ey wou ld be r equ ir ed t o sign
t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s u n t il a ft er t h eir pa ym en t for t h e t ou r h a d becom e
n on r efu n da ble. Doc. 42-1 a t 6; see a lso Doc. 40-8 a t 5 (Ren t a l Agr eem en t
r equ ir in g t h e pla in t iffs t o a gr ee t h a t “I ca n n ot get a r efu n d on m y r eser va t ion
u n less I n ot ify Ou t fit t er 48 h ou r s or fu r t h er in a dva n ce . . . .”); Doc. 40-3 a t 2
(em a il fr om Win t er F u n con fir m in g r eser va t ion , n ot in g t h a t t h e t ou r r equ ir es
a “100% a dva n ce pa ym en t on a ll sn owm obile r eser va t ion s” a n d t h a t “[n ]o
r efu n ds will be given wit h in 7 da ys pr ior t o you r r eser va t ion da t e”). Th e
pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t t h ese in flexible r efu n d policies pr odu ced a n
u n a ccept a ble dispa r it y of ba r ga in in g power a m on g t h e pa r t ies beca u se t h ey
cou ld n ot r efu se t o sign t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s wit h ou t for feit in g t h e fu ll
cost of t h e r en t a l a n d t ou r .
Cou r t s in ot h er ju r isdict ion s a r e split a s t o wh et h er a n excu lpa t or y
con t r a ct is con t r a r y t o pu blic policy wh en t h e pa r t y a ccept in g t h e con t r a ct h a s
a lr ea dy pa id a n on r efu n da ble deposit . In P a t t er son v. P owder Mon a r ch , LLC,
t h e Ten t h Cir cu it h eld t h a t a n excu lpa t or y a gr eem en t wa s fa ir ly en t er ed in t o
despit e t h e fa ct t h a t t h e pla in t iff “wou ld h a ve for feit ed t h e $ 57 sh e pa id for
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 12 of 22

13
h er lift t icket , plu s t h e t r a vel cost s sh e h a d in cu r r ed t o r ea ch t h e r esor t , if sh e
h a d ch osen n ot t o a ccept t h e r elea se of lia bilit y.” 926 F .3d 633, 640 (10t h Cir .
2019). Su r veyin g t h e r eleva n t ca se la w in Color a do, t h e Ten t h Cir cu it h eld,
“[A]ll of t h e per t in en t a u t h or it ies in dica t e t h a t [t h e fa ir en t r y fa ct or ] will
gen er a lly be sa t isfied wh er e t h e con t r a ct r ela t es t o a n on -essen t ia l
r ecr ea t ion a l a ct ivit y, a bsen t eviden ce of u n u su a l cir cu m st a n ces su ch a s
in com pet en cy.” Id. a t 641. Con ver sely, in Kr et zsch m a r v. Big H or n P ower
Spor t s, LLC, t h e pla in t iff beca m e a wa r e of a n d sign ed a n excu lpa t or y
a gr eem en t on ly a ft er h e h a d pa id a n on r efu n da ble $500 deposit a n d sign ed a
pu r ch a se a gr eem en t for a m ot or cycle a n d cu st om iza t ion kit . 2013 WL
11879674, a t *4 (D. Wyo. Oct . 7, 2013). In a n a ffida vit , h e sa id h e “did n ot feel
t h a t [h e] h a d a n y ch oice bu t t o sign t h e [Wa iver ].” Id. a t *3. Th er e, t h e cou r t
fou n d t h a t t h e “[p]la in t iff sign ed t h e Wa iver u n der pr essu r e a n d ou t of fea r of
losin g h is $500 deposit ” a n d t h u s det er m in ed t h a t h is a llega t ion s r a ised a
gen u in e issu e of m a t er ia l fa ct a s t o wh et h er t h e con t r a ct wa s fa ir ly en t er ed
in t o. Id.5
5 	Color a do a n d Wyom in g cou r t s eva lu a t e wh et h er a n excu lpa t or y
a gr eem en t is en for cea ble u n der fou r fa ct or s: ”(1) t h e exist en ce of a du t y t o t h e
pu blic; (2) t h e n a t u r e of t h e ser vice per for m ed; (3) wh et h er t h e con t r a ct wa s
fa ir ly en t er ed in t o; (4) wh et h er t h e in t en t ion of t h e pa r t ies is expr essed in
clea r a n d u n a m bigu ou s la n gu a ge.‘ P a t t er son , 926 F .3d a t 639 (qu ot in g J on es
v. Dr essel, 623 P .2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981) (en ba n c)); see a lso Kr et zsch m a r ,
2013 WL 11879674, a t *3 (sa m e). Un der t h is t est , a con t r a ct is n ot ”fa ir ly
en t er ed in t o‘ wh en t h er e is a dispa r it y of ba r ga in in g pa r t y bet ween t h e
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 13 of 22

14
Con sider in g t h e t ot a lit y of fa ct s befor e m e, I a m sa t isfied t h a t t h e
n on r efu n da ble deposit a t issu e h er e is n ot su fficien t ly coer cive t o dist in gu ish
t h is ca se fr om Lizzol, McGr a t h , a n d Ba r n es. Ra t h er , t h e r ecor d m a kes clea r
t h a t t h e pla in t iffs “fr eely ch ose[] t o en t er in t o t h e con t r a ct ” a n d n o lega lly
cogn iza ble dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power exist ed a m on g t h e pa r t ies. Ba r n es,
128 N.H . a t 108. Th e pla in t iffs wer e a wa r e t h a t t h eir pa r t icipa t ion in t h e
sn owm obile t ou r wa s volu n t a r y. See Doc. 39-5 a t 2 (“R I D I N G I S
VO L U N T AR Y”); Doc. 40-4 a t 93-94 (Ioa n n idis’s t est im on y t h a t t h e r en t a l
a ct ivit y wa s volu n t a r y). Mor eover , ju st a s in Lizzol, McGr a t h , a n d Ba r n es,
t h e a ct ivit y h er e—sn owm obilin g—is “n ot a n essen t ia l [ser vice],” a n d t h u s
“t h e defen da n t s h a d n o a dva n t a ge of ba r ga in in g st r en gt h .” Lizzol, 2016 WL
6459570, a t *8 (qu ot in g Ba r n es, 128 N.H . a t 108). Th e pla in t iffs do n ot a r gu e
t h a t t h is wa s t h e on ly sn owm obilin g oppor t u n it y a va ila ble t o t h em , n or do
t h ey in dica t e t h a t a n exigen cy exist ed t h a t com pelled t h eir a ssen t t o t h e
pa r t ies. See P a t t er son , 926 F .3d a t 639-40 (”A con t r a ct is fa ir ly en t er ed in t o if
on e pa r t y is n ot so obviou sly disa dva n t a ged wit h r espect t o ba r ga in in g power
t h a t t h e r esu lt in g con t r a ct essen t ia lly pla ces h im a t t h e m er cy of t h e ot h er
pa r t y÷s n egligen ce.‘) (qu ot in g H a m ill v. Ch eley Colo. Ca m ps, In c., 262 P .3d
945, 949 (Colo. App. 2011)); see a lso Kr et zsch m a r , 2013 WL 11879674, a t *3
(”[I]f t h er e is a va st dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power bet ween t h e pa r t ies a cou r t
m a y fin d t h a t t h e con t r a ct wa s u n fa ir ly en t er ed in t o.‘). Th er efor e, wh ile t h e
Ten t h Cir cu it does n ot em ploy t h e sa m e t est for excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s a s t h e
New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t does, it s ca ses a r e u sefu l a n a logu es in
det er m in in g wh a t con st it u t es a dispa r it y in ba r ga in in g power t h a t wou ld
r en der a con t r a ct ”u n fa ir ly en t er ed in t o.‘
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 14 of 22

15
E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s. See Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 496B, cm t . j
(A.L.I. 1965) (defin in g “dispa r it y of ba r ga in in g power ”). An d, a lt h ou gh t h e
Ten t h Cir cu it a pplies a sligh t ly differ en t t est t o eva lu a t e t h e fa ir n ess of
excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s, I a m per su a ded by t h a t cou r t ’s r ea son in g in P a t t er son ,
wh er e it h eld t h a t t h e r equ ir em en t t h a t a con t r a ct wa s fa ir ly en t er ed in t o
“will gen er a lly be sa t isfied wh er e t h e con t r a ct r ela t es t o a n on -essen t ia l
r ecr ea t ion a l a ct ivit y, a bsen t eviden ce of u n u su a l cir cu m st a n ces su ch a s
in com pet en cy.” 926 F .3d a t 641.6 H er e, wh er e t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s
in volved a n on -essen t ia l r ecr ea t ion a l a ct ivit y a n d t h e pla in t iffs volu n t a r ily
en t er ed in t o t h e a gr eem en t s, t h e sm a ll fin a n cia l pen a lt y t h e pla in t iffs m a y
h a ve in cu r r ed if t h ey r efu sed t o sign t h e a gr eem en t s is n ot su fficien t ly
coer cive t o pr even t t h e defen da n t s fr om en for cin g t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s.
Accor din gly, I gr a n t t h e defen da n t s’ r equ est s for su m m a r y ju dgm en t on t h e
pla in t iffs’ n egligen ce cla im .
3. 	St r ict P r odu ct Lia bilit y Cla im
Th e pla in t iffs n ext a r gu e t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s ca n n ot be
u sed t o ba r t h eir st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im .
6 	Mor eover , t h e fa ct s of t h e pr esen t ca se a r e dist in gu ish a ble fr om
Kr et zsch m a r . Th er e, t h e ”[p]la in t iff sign ed t h e Wa iver u n der pr essu r e a n d
ou t of fea r of losin g h is $500 deposit .‘ Kr et zsch m a r , 2013 WL 11879674, a t
*4. H er e, con ver sely, Ioa n n idis÷s a ffir m ed a t h is deposit ion t h a t ”No on e
for ced [h im ] t o en t er in t o t h is a gr eem en t ‘ a n d h e wa s ”fr ee n ot t o sign it if
[h e] did n ot wa n t t o wa ive [h is] r igh t s.‘ Doc. 40-4 a t 95.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 15 of 22

16
Wh en t h e New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t fir st r ecogn ized t h e st r ict
pr odu ct lia bilit y t or t in 1969, it ”explicit ly a dopt ed t h e doct r in e of st r ict
lia bilit y set for t h in Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 402A.‘ 8 N.H . P r a ct ice
§ 8.01 (cit in g Bu t t r ick v. Lessa r d & Son s, In c., 110 N.H . 36 (1969)). An d t h e
cou r t con t in u es t o r ely on § 402A wh en descr ibin g it s pr odu ct lia bilit y la w.
See, e.g. Kelleh er v. Ma r vin Lu m ber & Ceda r Co., 152 N.H . 813, 831 (2005);
P r ice v. BIC Cor p., 142 N.H . 386, 388 (1997); Th iba u lt v. Sea r s, Roebu ck &
Co., 118 N.H . 802, 812-13 (1978). Com m en t m t o § 402A st a t es t h a t a st r ict
lia bilit y cla im ”is n ot a ffect ed by a n y discla im er or ot h er a gr eem en t .‘
Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 402A cm t . m (A.L.I. 1965). Th is lim it a t ion is
ca r r ied for wa r d in § 18 of Rest a t em en t (Th ir d) of Tor t s: P r odu ct Lia bilit y.
An d, a s t h e r epor t er s÷n ot e t o § 18 r ecogn izes, ”a clea r m a jor it y of cou r t s‘
h a ve declin ed t o en for ce excu lpa t or y con t r a ct s t o ba r st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y
cla im s. See Rest a t em en t (Th ir d) of Tor t s: P r ods. Lia b. § 18 & r epor t er s÷n ot e
cm t . a (A.L.I. 1998) (cit in g § 402A cm t . m ). Alt h ou gh t h e New H a m psh ir e
Su pr em e Cou r t h a s n ot a ddr essed t h is issu e dir ect ly, I a m con fiden t t h a t it
will follow t h e m a jor it y r u le. Th u s, I con clu de t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s
do n ot lim it t h e pla in t iffs÷st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im .
4. 	Br ea ch of Wa r r a n t y Cla im
Br ea ch of wa r r a n t y cla im s sou n d in con t r a ct a n d a r e gover n ed by t h e
New H a m psh ir e÷s U n ifor m Com m er cia l Code r a t h er t h a n t h e com m on la w.
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 16 of 22

17
Sh eeh a n v. N.H . Liqu or Com m 'n , 126 N.H . 473, 476 (1985). Accor din gly, a s
n ot ed a bove, t h e defen da n t s÷cla im s t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s ba r t h e
r ecover y of da m a ges for br ea ch of wa r r a n t y a r e a n a lyzed u n der
§ 382-A:2A-503 r a t h er t h a n t h e com m on la w t est .
Alt h ou gh t h e defen da n t s a r gu e in gen er a l t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y
Con t r a ct s ba r t h e pla in t iffs÷br ea ch of wa r r a n t y cla im , t h ey do n ot m a ke
r efer en ce t o § 503(3) in t h eir su m m a r y ju dgm en t pa per s. Nor do t h ey
ot h er wise expla in h ow t h ey ca n over com e t h a t pr ovision ÷s pr esu m pt ion of
u n con scion a bilit y. Accor din gly, t h e defen da n t s h a ve n ot sh own t h a t t h ey a r e
en t it led t o su m m a r y ju dgm en t on t h e pla in t iffs÷br ea ch of wa r r a n t y cla im .
5. 	Con su m er P r ot ect ion Act Cla im
Th e pla in t iffs n ext a r gu e t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s h a ve n o effect
on t h eir CP A cla im . I a gr ee. RSA § 358-A:10(I) st a t es in per t in en t pa r t t h a t
”[a ]n y a t t em pt ed wa iver of t h e r igh t t o da m a ges set for t h in t h is pa r a gr a ph
sh a ll be void a n d u n en for cea ble.‘ RSA § 358-A:10(I). Th e defen da n t s h a ve
fa iled t o expla in wh y t h is pr ovision does n ot r esolve t h e issu e. Accor din gly, I
den y t h eir m ot ion s for su m m a r y ju dgm en t wit h r espect t o t h e CP A cla im .7
7 	Alt h ou gh t h e defen da n t s a lso pr esen t a ba r e bon es a r gu m en t t h a t t h e
pla in t iffs ca n n ot pr ove t h eir CP A cla im , I declin e t o a ddr ess t h eir a r gu m en t
beca u se it h a s n ot been su fficien t ly br iefed. See H iggin s v. New Ba la n ce
At h let ic Sh oe, In c., 194 F .3d 252, 260 (1st Cir . 1999) ( ”Th e dist r ict cou r t is
fr ee t o disr ega r d a r gu m en t s t h a t a r e n ot a dequ a t ely developed‘).
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 17 of 22

18
5. 	Loss of Con sor t iu m Cla im
Th e defen da n t s’ ch a llen ge t o Dilba r ia n 's loss of con sor t iu m cla im
pr esen t s a n ea r ly iden t ica l qu est ion t o on e I r ecen t ly a ddr essed in Du n n v.
Nor t h er n E xt r em es Spor t s & Recr ea t ion , In c., 2025 DNH 098, 2025 WL
2451220, a t *3 (D.N .H . Au g. 19, 2025). Th er e, I n ot ed t h a t “New H a m psh ir e
t r ea t s loss of con sor t iu m cla im s a s in depen den t of t h e u n der lyin g t or t : t h ey
a r e ‘sepa r a t e a n d dist in ct ’ cla im s.” Id. (qu ot in g Br a n n v. E xet er Clin ic, In c.,
127 N.H . 155, 160 (1985)). Th er efor e, I con clu ded, “a loss of con sor t iu m cla im
wh olly belon gs t o t h e spou se, n ot t h e in ju r ed pa r t y,” m ea n in g t h a t t h a t t h e
“power t o wa ive lia bilit y r est s wit h t h e spou se of t h e in ju r ed pa r t y.” Id.
Th e defen da n t s a r gu e t h a t t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s cover Dilba r ia n ’s
loss of con sor t iu m cla im t h r ou gh t h eir “n ext of kin ” la n gu a ge. See Doc. 39-5
a t 3 (“I AG R E E T O R E L E AS E T H E R E N T AL O P P O R T U N I T Y
S P O N S O R F R O M AN Y AN D AL L L I AB I L I T Y for a n y loss, da m a ge,
expen se or in ju r y (in clu din g dea t h ) t h a t I or m y n ext of kin m a y in cu r
r esu lt in g fr om m y pa r t icipa t ion in t h e Ren t a l Oppor t u n it y”). H owever ,
beca u se a loss of con sor t iu m cla im is der iva t ive, Ioa n n idis ca n n ot wa ive
Dilba r ia n ’s loss of con sor t iu m r igh t s. See Du n n , 2025 WL 2451220, a t *3.
Th er efor e, t h e n ext of kin pr ovision ca n n ot be u sed t o ba r h er cla im . Nor ca n
Dilba r ia n be depr ived of h er r igh t t o r ecover for loss of con sor t iu m ba sed on
h er own a gr eem en t t o be bou n d by t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s beca u se t h ose
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 18 of 22

19
Con t r a ct s on ly cover in ju r ies t h a t sh e or h er n ext of kin su ffer ed a s a r esu lt of
h er own pa r t icipa t ion in t h e t ou r . Doc. 39-5. As in Du n n , t h e Con t r a ct s do n ot
cover h er loss of con sor t iu m cla im beca u se sh e seeks t o r ecover da m a ges for
t h e in ju r y sh e su ffer ed beca u se of h er h u sba n d's pa r t icipa t ion in t h e t ou r . See
Du n n , 2025 WL 2451220, a t *4 (“If [t h e pla in t iff] h a d st a yed h om e [on t h e
da y of t h e sn owm obilin g a cciden t ], h e cou ld st ill a sser t a loss of con sor t iu m
cla im a r isin g fr om h is spou se’s a cciden t . Th e fa ct t h a t [t h e pla in t iff] h im self
a lso ch ose t o u se a sn owm obile t h a t da y a n d sign a wa iver r ela t in g t o h is own
pa r t icipa t ion in t h e a ct ivit y does n ot dest r oy h is loss of con sor t iu m cla im .”).
Th er efor e, beca u se Ioa n n idis ca n n ot wa ive Dilba r ia n ’s r igh t t o h old t h e
defen da n t s lia ble u n der a loss of con sor t iu m t h eor y, a n d sh e did n ot wa ive
h er r igh t t o r ecover y by en t er in g t h e E xcu lpa t or y Con t r a ct s, t h e defen da n t s
a r e n ot en t it led t o su m m a r y ju dgm en t on Dilba r ia n ’s loss of con sor t iu m
cla im .
B . 	S t r ic t P r o d u c t L ia b ilit y a s L e s s o r
Th e defen da n t s a lt er n a t ively con t en d t h a t t h ey ca n n ot be h eld lia ble on
t h e pla in t iffs’ st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im beca u se t h ey n eit h er
m a n u fa ct u r ed n or sold t h e a llegedly defect ive h elm et . Th e pla in t iffs a r gu e in
r espon se t h a t t h eir st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im is via ble beca u se t h e
defen da n t s lea sed t h e h elm et t o Ioa n n idis wh en h e a gr eed t o go on t h e t ou r .
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 19 of 22

20
Th e New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t h a s a ddr essed effor t s t o ext en d
st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y t o defen da n t s wh o wer e n eit h er m a n u fa ct u r er s n or
seller s on sever a l occa sion s. In Br escia v. Gr ea t Roa d Rea lt y Tr u st , for
exa m ple, t h e cou r t declin ed t o h old a defen da n t wh o lea sed a cr a n e st r ict ly
lia ble for t h e m a ch in e’s a lleged defect s beca u se h e wa s “n ot in t h e bu sin ess of
su pplyin g cr a n es.” 117 N.H . 154, 157 (1977). In r ea ch in g t h is con clu sion , t h e
cou r t n ot ed t h a t “t h e occa sion a l seller ” or din a r ily will n ot be su bject ed t o
st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y a n d, a ccor din gly, “t o t h e ext en t t h e doct r in e is
a pplica ble t o a lea se a gr eem en t , it wou ld seem t o be a pplica ble on ly wh er e
t h e lea se in qu est ion r epr esen t s som et h in g m or e t h a n bu sin ess h a ppen st a n ce
on t h e pa r t of t h e lessor .” Id. Cf. Lokken v. U-H a u l of N .H ., In c., n o.
219-2016-CV-272, slip op. a t 2 (N.H . Su per . Ct . F eb. 18, 2000) (a pplyin g st r ict
pr odu ct lia bilit y t o m ovin g t r u ck r en t a l com pa n y beca u se it s lea se of a va n
“wa s n ot bu sin ess h a ppen st a n ce, bu t in st ea d wa s pa r t of it s cor e bu sin ess”).
Th e cou r t h a s a lso m a de it clea r t h a t it will n ot su bject ser vice
pr ovider s t o st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y m er ely beca u se a n a llegedly defect ive
pr odu ct wa s u sed wh en pr ovidin g a ser vice. In Boldu c v. H er ber t Sch n eider
Cor por a t ion , t h e cou r t declin ed t o h old a ski-a r ea oper a t or wh o wa s “n ot t h e
m a n u fa ct u r er or seller of [a ] t r a m wa y‘ a n d ”pr ovide[d] on ly a ser vice‘ st r ict ly
lia ble for a n a cciden t t h a t occu r r ed on t h e t r a m wa y. 117 N.H . 566, 569-70
(1977). Th er e, t h e cou r t obser ved t h a t ”[e]ven wh en a pr odu ct is u sed or
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 20 of 22

21
su pplied in t h e cou r se of a n d a s a n in ciden t t o t h e ser vice, st r ict lia bilit y h a s
u su a lly been den ied.‘ Id. a t 569 (cit a t ion m odified). Likewise, in Sicilia n o v.
Ca pit ol Cit y Sh ows, In c., t h e cou r t declin ed t o a pply st r ict lia bilit y t o a n
a m u sem en t -r ide oper a t or wh o ”pr ovides per son s wit h a ser vice; n a m ely, a
r ide on a m a ch in e‘ a n d ”does n ot sell or su pply a pr odu ct .‘ 124 N.H . 719, 730
(1984).
Th e pr esen t ca se in volves a lea se-ser vice h ybr id n ot squ a r ely a ddr essed
by t h e N ew H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t , in wh ich a pr odu ct is lea sed in
con n ect ion wit h t h e pr ovision of a ser vice. In sim ila r ca ses, com m en t d t o § 20
of t h e Rest a t em en t (Th ir d) of Tor t s: P r odu ct Lia bilit y su ggest s t h a t if t h e
pr odu ct a n d t h e ser vice a r e billed sepa r a t ely, or t h e pr odu ct is fu lly con su m ed
wh ile pr ovidin g t h e ser vice, cou r t s will gen er a lly t r ea t t h e defen da n t a s a
seller su bject t o st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y. Rest a t em en t (Th ir d) of Tor t s:
P r ods. Lia b. § 20 & cm t . d (A.L.I. 1998). Bu t wh er e t h e pr odu ct is m er ely u sed
in per for m in g a ser vice, t h e t r a n sa ct ion will n ot t ypica lly be t r ea t ed a s a sa le,
a n d t h e ser vice pr ovider will n ot be h eld st r ict ly lia ble for t h e pr odu ct ÷s
defect s. Id.
Given t h e New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t ÷s decision s in Br escia ,
Boldu c, a n d Sicilia n o, a n d t h e discu ssion in com m en t d, I believe t h a t t h e
New H a m psh ir e Su pr em e Cou r t wou ld declin e t o h old t h e defen da n t s st r ict ly
lia ble for a n y defect s in t h e h elm et t h ey pr ovided t o Ioa n n idis. Th e pla in t iffs
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 21 of 22

22
do n ot cla im t h a t t h ey wer e ch a r ged sepa r a t ely for t h e lea se of t h e h elm et
a n d t h e t ou r . N or wa s t h e a llegedly defect ive h elm et ”u sed u p or con su m ed‘
by Ioa n n idis. Id. In st ea d, it wa s lea sed by t h e defen da n t s m er ely ”a s a n
in ciden t t o‘ t h e pla in t iffs÷pa r t icipa t ion in t h e gu ided t ou r . Bu ldoc, 117 N.H .
a t 569 (declin in g t o a pply st r ict lia bilit y wh er e a pr odu ct wa s pr ovided ”a s a n
in ciden t t o‘ a ser vice). Accor din gly, I con clu de t h a t t h e defen da n t s ca n n ot be
h eld st r ict ly lia ble for a n y a lleged defect s in t h e h elm et t h ey lea sed t o
Ioa n n idis.
I V. 	C O N C L U S I O N
F or t h e for egoin g r ea son s, I gr a n t t h e defen da n t s’ m ot ion s for su m m a r y
ju dgm en t wit h r espect t o t h e pla in t iffs’ n egligen ce a n d n egligen t
m isr epr esen t a t ion cla im (Cou n t I) a n d t h eir st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y cla im
(Cou n t II). In a ll ot h er r espect s, t h eir m ot ion s a r e den ied. Doc. 39; Doc. 40.
SO ORDE RE D.
/s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o
P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o
Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge
J u n e 17, 2026
cc: 	Cou n sel of Recor d
Case 1:24-cv-00030-PB-AJ Document 49 Filed 06/17/26 Page 22 of 22