Does a “Highway” Include Pedestrian Warning Signs? New Hampshire Supreme Court Expands the Legal Definition Under RSA 231
Introduction
In New Hampshire, the legal definition of a “highway” has implications far beyond personal injury law. It affects how municipalities, property owners, and abutters understand their rights and responsibilities related to access, maintenance, road layout, and easements. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision clarifies that pedestrian warning signs, crosswalk signals, and other traffic control devices are part of a “highway” under RSA 231:92. This interpretation matters for anyone involved in road-related real estate disputes, municipal governance, or land development.
Why the Definition of “Highway” Matters
Municipalities in New Hampshire are protected by statutes that limit their liability for roads—referred to legally as “highways.” Under RSA 231:90–:92, an injured party (or anyone asserting a claim involving road conditions) must meet certain statutory criteria to hold a municipality accountable. These requirements include:
Providing notice of an alleged hazard or “insufficiency;”
Showing the municipality failed to act on that notice;
Demonstrating that the highway was insufficient under the statute’s definition.
While these statutes are often cited in injury cases, the legal scope of what qualifies as a “highway” is critical to many other issues—such as determining who must maintain a road, or whether a municipality acted appropriately in managing road infrastructure.
Case Overview: Felts v. City of Rochester, 2025 N.H. 16 (Apr. 16, 2025)
In December 2020, Diane Felts attempted to cross North Main Street in Rochester using a marked crosswalk. A vehicle struck her in the crosswalk, and she later died from her injuries. There were no pedestrian signs or signals at the location.
Her husband, Raymond Felts, sued the City of Rochester, alleging it failed to maintain the crosswalk in a reasonably safe condition under RSA 231:90–:92—specifically due to the lack of warning signage or traffic signals.
The City moved to dismiss, asserting that warning signs and traffic devices are part of the highway for statutory purposes and thus subject to RSA 231’s notice and immunity provisions. The Superior Court disagreed, ruling that while the crosswalk itself was part of the highway, the signs and signals were not. The City appealed.
Supreme Court Ruling: Pedestrian Warning Signs Are Part of the Highway
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling. It held that pedestrian warning signs, crossing signals, and related traffic control devices are indeed part of a “highway” under RSA 231:92. The Court based its ruling on several key points:
Statutory Text: RSA 231:90 expressly includes “warning signs” in its definition of when a highway is considered “insufficient.”
Functional Integration: The Court emphasized that what matters is not where a sign is located physically, but whether it plays an integral role in the viatic (travel-related) function of the road.
Legislative Intent: The Court cited legislative history showing the statutes were designed to provide municipalities with “the greatest possible protection” from road-related claims, not just those involving pavement defects.
By concluding the term “highways” as used in RSA 231:92 includes pedestrian warning signs, the Supreme Court ruled an injured plaintiff using a crosswalk in a municipal road must show the municipality failed to act per the requirements of RSA 231:90-92.
Why This Ruling Matters Beyond Injury Claims
While Felts involved a fatal injury, the implications of the decision extend beyond tort law. The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling that pedestrian warning signs and crosswalk signals are part of a public highway under RSA 231:90–92 clarifies several points:
Municipalities can more clearly understand what they are responsible for under RSA 231.
Property owners and real estate professionals may argue the presence of pedestrian warning signs indicates a road is public.
Landowners and developers involved in disputes over public road status or scope of infrastructure now have stronger legal footing when interpreting statutory obligations.
Need Help on Road or Easement Issues?
For assistance with road, easement, real estate or civil litigation matters, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form. The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.