Court Opinion

ID: 9624548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:08:09.254504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:49.601953
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent on the basis that the notice provision does not apply to plaintiff because the cause of action in this matter arose prior to the enactment of the statute.
I agree with the majority opinion that generally “[limitation statutes and notice requirements are but procedural matters . ” and may therefore be applied retroactively.
But legislative intent in this case is, I submit, otherwise with respect to the notice provision and must control.
Utah Code Ann., 1953, Sec. 78-14-4, as amended, refers specifically to the statute of limitations in this matter and in subsection (2) thereof states that the statute of limitations will be applied retroactively, with certain reservations not relevant here. Utah Code Ann., 1953, Sec. 78-14-8, as amended, is the statute pertaining to the requirement that ninety days prior notice must be given before action is commenced. In this latter statute, no language of retro-activity is used or suggested. Therefore, the Legislature meant that no retroactive effect be given to the notice requirement.
Additionally it seems to me that the construction of Sec. 78-14-8 which I suggest would allow this lawsuit to be heard on its merits rather than truncated by a procedural ruling. ■
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of WILKINS, J.