Manchester, NH — In a landmark case that spotlighted alleged abuses at a New Hampshire youth detention center, a jury awarded David Meehan $38 million for the traumas he said he suffered in the 1990s. However, the state Attorney General’s office announced plans to limit the compensation to $475,000, citing a governmental immunity statute.
Meehan, now 42, asserted that while he was at the Youth Development Center (YDC) from December 1995 to January 1999, he was repeatedly raped, beaten, and isolated. His case is the first among potentially 1,500, alleging similar abuses spanning decades at the facility. Following Meehan’s 2020 lawsuit, several former state workers have been arrested.
The jury’s decision, unprecedented in New Hampshire’s legal history, granted Meehan $18 million in compensatory and $20 million in enhanced damages, reflecting the severity of the abuses. However, the statutory cap referenced by state lawyers would dramatically restrict the payout to the single instance of complex PTSD identified during the trial.
The ruling has stirred mixed reactions, highlighting a significant disconnect between the jury’s verdict and legal constraints on damage awards against state entities. The New Hampshire Department of Justice stressed that their move to cap the award was not discretionary but mandated under state law RSA 541-B, which limits awards in tort actions against state agencies to $475,000 per claimant per incident.
Despite the legal backdrop, the jurors, who remained unaware of the cap during the trial, seemed to recognize multiple instances of abuse. Meehan’s attorney, Russ Rilee, noted the jury’s decision was influenced by what was perceived as repetitive trauma suffered by Meehan under state care.
In response to this disparity, Judge Andrew Schulman supported the jury’s verdict but acknowledged a misunderstanding regarding the legal definition of an “incident”. The court proposed several options to reconcile the verdict with the statutory cap, including revising the judgment to reflect multiple incidents of abuse substantiated by evidence.
Throughout the proceedings, state officials were criticized for their handling of the case, with Meehan’s legal representatives accusing them of further victimizing him by seeking to minimize the settlement. The case also sparked broader discussions about the state’s duty of care and their accountability in protecting children in governmental facilities.
Adding to the controversy, a 2018 amendment aimed at expanding individuals’ rights to seek judicial relief was pointed out by Michael Lewis, another attorney involved in the case, who questioned whether the state’s cap was legally defensible. He suggested that the cap on damages might not withstand an equal protection challenge, hinting at inconsistencies in the application of the immunity statute.
Legal experts and advocates argue that beyond the legal arguments, an official acknowledgment or apology from the state could serve a significant role in healing and acknowledging the wrongs alleged by Meehan and other former residents. Such gestures, they maintain, are essential steps towards restoring trust and dignity to the victims of institutional abuse.
A hearing to further consider the cap’s applicability in the case is scheduled for June 24, promising ongoing scrutiny of how New Hampshire confrontagemnes liability for historical abuses within its juvenile justice system. Legal observers and the public alike await the court’s decision, which could set precedents for how similarly complex and sensitive cases are handled in the future.