## Facts

- Multiple product-injury suits were consolidated to test the constitutionality of New Hampshire’s products-liability statute, RSA ch. 507-D.
- In the lead case, Clifford A. Heath was seriously injured when a Sears drive ratchet malfunctioned; its direction-change lever snapped and struck his eye.
- RSA ch. 507-D imposed a 12-year statute of repose measured from when the manufacturer relinquished possession/control (or sold the product), regardless of when injury occurred.
- RSA ch. 507-D also imposed a 3-year limitations period for product-liability actions running from discovery (or when discovery should have occurred).
- The statute included provisions limiting or barring recovery when a product had been modified or altered after leaving the manufacturer.
- Several plaintiffs’ actions were dismissed or limited because the statute’s repose period, limitations period, and modification/alteration provisions restricted or extinguished their claims, in some cases before any injury occurred.
- Plaintiffs challenged the statute under the equal protection guarantees of the New Hampshire Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether RSA 507-D’s 12-year statute of repose violates state equal protection by extinguishing certain product-injury claims before they accrue.
2. Whether RSA 507-D’s special 3-year discovery-based limitations period for product-liability actions violates state equal protection by treating product-liability plaintiffs differently from other personal-injury plaintiffs.
3. Whether RSA 507-D’s modification/alteration provisions are unconstitutional because they bar recovery for injuries involving modified products.
4. If portions of RSA 507-D are unconstitutional, whether any remaining provisions (including the state-of-the-art defense) are severable and may remain in force.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court held the 12-year statute of repose unconstitutional under the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
- The court held the 3-year product-liability limitations provision unconstitutional for impermissibly singling out product-liability plaintiffs.
- The court held the modification/alteration provisions invalid because they created an inequitable classification that barred recovery in circumstances where comparable claims could proceed.
- Although the court viewed the state-of-the-art defense as substantively acceptable, it held that it was not severable from the unconstitutional provisions.
- The court declared RSA ch. 507-D void in its entirety and remanded the consolidated cases for further proceedings under general New Hampshire tort law without RSA 507-D’s restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Hampshire equal protection doctrine, statutory classifications must be reasonable, nonarbitrary, and bear a fair and substantial relation to the legislative objective.
- A products-liability statute of repose that bars actions before injury occurs can violate equal protection when it creates arbitrary distinctions between persons injured before and after the repose period without a sufficient relation to the statute’s asserted purpose (including insurance-cost reduction).
- A limitations scheme that uniquely burdens product-liability plaintiffs, without adequate justification for differential treatment from other personal-injury claimants, fails state equal protection review.
- A categorical bar tied to product modification/alteration may violate equal protection when it denies recovery in an inequitable manner compared with treatment of other injury-causing product uses.
- A provision that could be valid on its own may still be invalidated if it is not severable from unconstitutional parts and the court cannot conclude the legislature would have enacted it independently.

## Conclusion

The New Hampshire Supreme Court invalidated RSA ch. 507-D in full because its statute of repose, special limitations period, and modification/alteration bar violated state equal protection, and the remaining state-of-the-art defense could not be severed from the unconstitutional statutory package.


Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 N.H. 512, 464 A.2d 288 (N.H. 1983)