State v. Zhukovskyy, 265 A. 3d 27 (2021)

The State of New Hampshire charged Volodymyr Zhukovskyy with multiple counts of negligent homicide, manslaughter, and reckless conduct after a collision involving his commercial truck resulted in the deaths of seven motorcyclists. At the time of the crash, Zhukovskyy’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) should have been suspended due to prior DUI-related offenses in other states; however, a failure in interagency communication allowed his Massachusetts-issued CDL to remain valid. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that, although tragic, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zhukovskyy acted with criminal negligence or recklessness under the law. The Court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that he was consciously aware of the substantial risk posed by his conduct or that his impairment was the proximate cause of the crash. As a result, Zhukovskyy was acquitted on all charges.

N.H. DOT N.H. Pub. Emple. Labor Rels. Bd., 273 A.3d 368, 375 (2021)

The State Employees’ Association of New Hampshire, Inc., SEIU Local 1984 (Union), filed an unfair labor practices claim against the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) after DOT changed commercial driver’s license requirements where a state employee must obtain a CDL medical card and pay a medical exam fee if he or she is promoted, demoted, or transferred to a different position requiring a CDL medical card. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that DOT did not have the “exclusive authority” to adopt a new CDL medical card requirement for current employees, and that, therefore, the requirement is not a prohibited subject of bargaining. The Court also held that the new CDL medical card requirement did affect the terms and conditions of employment and that the bargaining of said requirement would not interfere with the government control of a public function. Thus, the new CDL requirement should have been the subject of bargaining.

State v. Woodman, 114 N.H. 497, 323 A.2d 921 (N.H. 1974)

State resident, whose place of business was in neighboring state, which required him to hold commercial driver’s license in that state, was also required to hold driver’s license issued by home state to operate a vehicle in such state, despite statute which provided that applicant for state driver’s license had to surrender any other state’s driver’s license held.