for negligent acts. The plaintiff argues that to construe RSA 508:14,1, as the defendants suggest would be in derogation of the common law. As set forth above, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly. Sweeney, 151 N.H. at 241. Other jurisdictions that have interpreted similar statutory provisions have construed the phrase “any person” as referring to “any person as a member of the general public.” Conant, 51 P.3d at 1267; see also Snyder, 634 N.E.2d at 761 (“We believe that the purpose of the Recreational Use Act would not be advanced by applying the Act to a situation where an owner does not open his property to the public, but simply invites a few private persons to a picnic.”); Perrine, 911 P.2d at 1293 (same); LePoidevin by Dye, 330 N.W.2d at 563 (<HOLDING>). These courts have recognized that to hold
holding that a landowner could recover for placement of a median strip that could not have occurred but for the taking of the landowners property because the inquiry is how much has the particular public improvement decreased the fair market value of the property taking into consideration the use for which the land was taken and all the reasonably probable effects of its devotion to that use holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that immunity is limited to the general public because the court does not presume that the legislature intended  to work a wholesale change in the entire law relating to the obligations of all landowners to all entrants to the land including social guests invited to the premises for recreational purposes