New Hampshire Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator
Get a rough estimate of what a New Hampshire slip-and-fall claim might be worth. Enter your medical bills and losses and answer a few plain questions — the tool weighs how provable the owner's fault is and your share of fault. This is an estimate to understand the factors, not a prediction or an offer.
This is a rough estimate, not a prediction or an offer.
Slip-and-fall claims turn on proving the property owner was at fault — there is no formula that predicts a settlement. This shows the factors and a wide range to help you understand value. Consult a New Hampshire premises-liability attorney about your case.
Enter the medical bills and losses to see an estimated range
The multiplier method is a rough starting point, not a guarantee. Slip-and-fall value depends most on proving the owner's fault and on the available insurance. An attorney is the only way to value your specific claim. This tool is not legal advice and RecordingLaw.com is not a law firm.
How the Estimate Works
No tool can predict a slip-and-fall settlement. This calculator applies the multiplier method (pain and suffering as a multiple of your medical bills), then does something the thin online calculators skip: it weighs how provable the owner's fault is. A spill the staff caused or knew about is worth far more than a hazard nobody can show the owner knew about. It then estimates your own comparative fault from a few plain questions and applies New Hampshire's rules.
Proving the Owner Was at Fault
Premises liability has four parts: a dangerous condition existed, the owner knew or should have known about it, they failed to fix it or warn you, and that caused your injury. The middle part — notice — is where most slip-and-fall cases are won or lost. Strong evidence (an incident report, photos of the hazard, surveillance video, cleaning and maintenance logs, prior complaints) is what turns a claim from a token offer into real money. A posted warning sign or cone works against you: it shows the owner did warn, and it makes the hazard "open and obvious," shifting fault onto you.
New Hampshire Premises-Liability Rules
Open-and-obvious hazards. In New Hampshire, an open-and-obvious hazard is only a comparative-fault factor (it reduces, not bars). New Hampshire does NOT use the open-and-obvious doctrine as a no-duty bar. In Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552 (1976), the NH Supreme Court abolished the rigid invitee/licensee/trespasser categories and imposed a single duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances on every landowner. Under the controlling modern statement in Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95 (2009), a premises owner must use ordinary care to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of, or remedy, dangerous conditions it knows or should know of. The obviousness of a hazard does not extinguish that duty; the owner must still anticipate that an entrant may be harmed despite the danger being apparent. A plaintiff's own awareness of an open and obvious condition is instead weighed as comparative fault under RSA 507:7-d (NH's modified-51 comparative negligence statute), reducing — and, only above 50%, barring — recovery. New Hampshire thus treats open-and-obvious as a comparative-fault factor, not a duty-defeating bar.
Ice and snow. New Hampshire applies an ordinary reasonable-care duty to ice and snow, so a poorly-maintained walkway can support a claim. New Hampshire does NOT follow the rigid no-duty "natural accumulation" rule used in states like Illinois and Ohio. A premises owner owes an ongoing duty of ordinary/reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, which extends to naturally accumulated snow and ice (Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95 (2009); duty framework from Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552 (1976)). Reasonableness is judged case-by-case on factors such as anticipated foot traffic, the magnitude of the risk, and the burden of removal, and may require salting, sanding, or warning of conditions like black ice. New Hampshire has NOT adopted the "storm-in-progress" doctrine that suspends the duty during an ongoing storm. Rutkauskas v. Hodgins, 120 N.H. 788 (1980) is narrow — it rejected only STRICT liability for a building that redirected precipitation onto an adjacent public sidewalk, not the ordinary reasonable-care duty. Because the duty is the ordinary reasonable-care duty rather than a no-duty rule, this is coded "duty."
Public property. If you fell on government property, New Hampshire requires a formal notice of claim — often within about 180 days, much shorter than the normal deadline. For a fall on STATE property, RSA 541-B:14, III requires written notice to the responsible agency within 180 days after the injury, stating the date, time, and location ("the agency shall be provided written notice within 180 days after the time of the injury or damage"). It is a condition precedent, but unlike many states the lack of notice does not automatically bar the claim — only "if the agency can show by a preponderance of the evidence that its ability to defend against the action was substantially prejudiced thereby." Claims against municipalities/local governmental units are governed by RSA chapter 507-B, which caps damages and limits liability but does NOT impose a separate short pre-suit notice period; those claims are governed by the general 3-year personal-injury statute of limitations (RSA 508:4).
Your Fault & the Deadline to File
New Hampshire follows modified comparative negligence (51% bar). Your award is reduced by your share of fault, and you recover nothing once you are 51% or more at fault.
RSA 507:7-d: contributory fault does not bar recovery "if such fault was not greater than the fault of the defendant" (or defendants in the aggregate). A plaintiff who is 50% at fault still recovers (fault is not greater than defendant's); a plaintiff whose fault is greater than the defendant's — i.e., 51% or more — is barred. This is a modified comparative / 51% bar rule. Recoverable damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's percentage of fault. NH is a modified-51 state, NOT pure comparative and NOT one of the pure-contributory states (AL, MD, NC, VA, DC).
New Hampshire generally requires a slip-and-fall lawsuit to be filed within 3 years of the fall (the statute of limitations). RSA 508:4, I: "all personal actions ... may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of," with a discovery-rule extension (3 years from when the injury and its causal relationship were or reasonably should have been discovered). Medical-injury actions are also 3 years under RSA 508:4 / 507-E framework. Disability tolling for minors/incompetents under RSA 508:8. Source: Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552 (1976) (unified reasonable-care duty; abolished status categories); Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95 (2009) (ordinary care to keep premises reasonably safe; snow/ice; burden on owner); Rutkauskas v. Hodgins, 120 N.H. 788 (1980) (no STRICT liability for redirected precipitation); RSA 507:7-d (modified-51 comparative negligence); RSA 508:4 (3-year PI SOL); RSA 541-B:14 (180-day state notice of claim); RSA ch. 507-B (municipal liability limits).
- New Hampshire applies a single 'reasonable care under all the circumstances' duty to all landowners. In Ouellette v. Blanchard (1976) the NH Supreme Court abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions, and Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets (2009) restates the duty to keep premises reasonably safe and to warn of or remedy known/knowable dangers.
- Open-and-obvious is NOT a bar in NH. A visible hazard does not eliminate the owner's duty; the plaintiff's awareness is a comparative-fault factor under RSA 507:7-d, which bars recovery only if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault (modified-51).
- No rigid natural-accumulation no-duty rule. Owners owe ordinary reasonable care for snow/ice (salting, sanding, warning of black ice), judged on traffic, risk, and burden. NH has not adopted the 'storm-in-progress' doctrine. Rutkauskas v. Hodgins (1980) only rejected STRICT liability for redirected precipitation.
- For falls on STATE property, RSA 541-B:14 requires written notice within 180 days, but late/no notice bars the claim only if the State proves its defense was substantially prejudiced. The suit itself must still be filed within the 3-year SOL (RSA 508:4).
- Municipal claims fall under RSA chapter 507-B (damage caps, limited immunity) with no separate short notice-of-claim period — they are governed by the general 3-year personal-injury statute of limitations.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is my New Hampshire slip and fall claim worth?
No one can tell you a number in advance, and slip-and-fall is harder than a car accident because you must prove the owner was at fault. A rough estimate adds your economic damages and a pain-and-suffering multiplier, discounts it by how provable the owner's fault is, and reduces it for your share of fault under New Hampshire's modified comparative negligence (51% bar) rule. The available insurance also caps recovery — an attorney is the only way to value your specific case.
Does a "wet floor" sign hurt my New Hampshire claim?
Yes, usually. A posted warning shows the owner satisfied part of their duty to warn and makes the hazard "open and obvious," which shifts fault onto you. In New Hampshire, an open-and-obvious hazard is only a comparative-fault factor (it reduces, not bars). It reduces — and sometimes defeats — a claim, but not always (a hidden or inadequate sign may not help the owner).
Can I sue for a fall on ice or snow in New Hampshire?
New Hampshire applies an ordinary reasonable-care duty to ice and snow, so a poorly-maintained or unaddressed icy walkway can support a claim, subject to your own comparative fault. This is general information, not legal advice — consult a New Hampshire attorney.
How long do I have to file in New Hampshire?
Generally 3 years from the fall. If you fell on public property, a much shorter notice-of-claim deadline (around 180 days) applies first. RSA 508:4, I: "all personal actions ... may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of," with a discovery-rule extension (3 years from when the injury and its causal relationship were or reasonably should have been discovered). Medical-injury actions are also 3 years under RSA 508:4 / 507-E framework. Disability tolling for minors/incompetents under RSA 508:8.
Is this calculator accurate?
It is a rough estimate to show the factors that drive value — not a prediction or an offer. Slip-and-fall outcomes vary enormously and depend on proving fault and on the available insurance. Treat any number here as a ballpark and consult a New Hampshire attorney.
Disclaimer
This estimator is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome. RecordingLaw.com is not a law firm. The value of a slip-and-fall claim can only be assessed by a licensed attorney reviewing your specific facts.