24-03-2025
$425K cap in YDC abuse case where jury awarded $38M heads to NH Supreme Court
Mar. 24—The state's highest court will hear arguments surrounding David Meehan's historic $38 million jury award after a civil trial on the abuse he endured at the Youth Development Center in the 1990s.
Meehan was the first of nearly 1,300 to have his case heard by a jury on alleged abuse at the youth correctional facility over the course of decades.
A jury in May found the state 100% liable for Meehan's injuries and awarded him $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in enhanced compensatory damages. The jury, however, only listed one "incident" on its verdict form, which has sparked debate on how much Meehan is owed. New Hampshire statutes cap the damages for a single incident at $475,000.
The Supreme Court accepted Meehan's interlocutory appeal earlier this month. The case is also eligible for mediation, according to the order.
Over the course of the four-week trial, Meehan's lawyers said their client was beaten and raped hundreds of times at the YDC. Attorneys for the state argued that the state shouldn't be held accountable for the rogue actions of employees.
Meehan's lawyers filed the appeal after the Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman "reluctantly" dropped the award to $475,000 because of a state limit last November. But he wrote he believes the statutory damages cap amounts to be a miscarriage of justice.
In the appeal, the lawyers said the judgment became complicated "by an unusual but obvious jury error with respect to a question on the special-verdict form."
The Supreme Court is set to consider the following:
1. Is the $475,000 cap unconstitutional when the jury found the state's conduct toward Meehan to be wanton, malicious or oppressive?
2. Does the superior court have the authority to enter a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict striking question 10 from the verdict form?
3. Does the superior court have the authority to order a partial retrial on the number of "incident(s)?"
Meehan's lawyers say the Supreme Court has never addressed the questions being presented, which has caused the difference of opinion.
"Granting the State immunity in these circumstances violates the New Hampshire Constitution's guarantee of an 'orderly, lawful, and accountable government,'" the appeal reads.
"Each of these issues has implications outside Mr. Meehan's case. If the Supreme Court holds that the damages cap is unconstitutional as applied where a jury has found that the State's conduct toward Mr. Meehan was wanton, malicious, or oppressive, that holding could be important in any other YDC/YDSU case that proceeds to trial," the appeal reads.
