## Facts

- Chelsea Hacking, a sixth-grade student, was injured during a girls’ basketball game between Canterbury and Belmont elementary school teams.
- The game was part of a school athletic program organized by the Town of Belmont and the Shaker Regional School District (and/or the Town of Canterbury).
- Plaintiffs alleged referees, coaches, instructors, and other personnel allowed the game to escalate out of control.
- Plaintiffs alleged Belmont players twice knocked Chelsea down and stepped on her leg, causing permanent injury, surgery, and future medical needs.
- Plaintiffs sued for (1) negligent supervision and control of the game, (2) vicarious liability for personnel’s negligent supervision/control and failure to ensure safe play, and (3) negligent training and supervision of personnel.

## Issues

1. Whether discretionary-function immunity barred negligence claims challenging the defendants’ decisions regarding organization, staffing, training, supervision, and in-game control of the athletic event.
2. Whether assumption of the risk from participating in basketball required dismissal at the pleadings stage.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held discretionary-function immunity bars claims targeting policy-level planning decisions, but not claims alleging operational negligence in supervising and controlling a particular game.
- The court held assumption of the risk did not justify dismissal on the pleadings because the defense was fact-dependent and the complaint alleged conduct arguably beyond ordinary risks of the sport.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal immunity shields “planning” or policy-level discretionary decisions (including allocative and program-design choices), but not operational acts implementing established policies.
- In school athletics, allegations of inadequate supervision and failure to control a specific contest are generally operational and not protected by discretionary-function immunity.
- Assumption of the risk in sports does not automatically bar negligence claims; it depends on whether the alleged conduct and injury fall within risks inherent in the sport.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, assumption of the risk ordinarily cannot be resolved as a matter of law where the pleadings plausibly allege excessive or uncontrolled conduct.

## Conclusion

The court required dismissal of claims that attacked policy-level discretionary decisions protected by municipal immunity, but allowed claims alleging negligent supervision and loss of control during the specific basketball game to proceed, and it rejected assumption of risk as a basis for dismissal at the pleadings stage.


Hacking v. Town of Belmont, 736 A.2d 1229 (N.H. 1999)