Court Opinion

ID: 9762377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:21:35.20867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:33.896021
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, J.,
dissenting.
I do not disagree with Part I of the Court’s opinion herein. I cannot accept, however, the majority’s interpretation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, the notice provision of the Maine Tort Claim Act. My interpretation of that section would compel us to vacate the Superior Court judgment and remand this case for a determination of whether the State of Maine was, in fact, prejudiced by the late filing of written notice required by section 8107.
The majority opinion notes that “[t]he general purposes of a notice requirement are to save needless expense and litigation by providing an opportunity for amicable resolution of disputes, and to allow the defendant to fully investigate claims and defenses.” Maj. op. at 349-50. The erection of a barrier to this plaintiff’s suit as a result of a late notice, in the absence of prejudice to the State, serves none of these purposes. To me, the clear purpose of the “good cause” provision of subsection 1 of section 8107 is to relieve a claimant from the consequences of lateness even in those instances where the governmental entity is actually prejudiced. I see no reason why the Legislature would, in effect, presume that late filing must necessarily frustrate the purposes of the notice requirement. Such a presumption is particularly unjust if a governmental entity cannot show prejudice because it has actual knowledge of the claim.
Nevertheless, the majority says that the substantial compliance exception is not applicable if the 180-day notice provision has not been satisfied. They claim that the protection afforded a late-filing claimant by the good cause exception embodied in the first paragraph of section 8107 compels this result. In my view a careful analysis of the overall statutory scheme of the Act in general and section 8107 in particular negates any such compulsion.
The enactment of the Maine Tort Claims Act followed this Court’s abrogation of the common law doctrine of governmental immunity in Davies v. City of Bath, Me., 364 A.2d 1269 (1976). Although we pointed out in Davies that the Legislature retained the prerogative of reinstating the absolute bar of immunity, the Legislature recognized the validity of our criticism of that outmoded doctrine. It cannot be denied that the Legislature by enacting the Act acknowledged that fairness requires claimants harmed by activities within the scope of liability under the Act have a realistic opportunity to seek compensation. I reject outright the State’s proposition that the Legislature included the notice requirement as a trap for the unwary merely in order to reduce the impact on public funds.1
*352With the overall policy of fairness in mind and accepting the acknowledged purposes of the notice requirement, I examine the fabric of section 8107. First, I would point out that subsection 1 of that section fails to provide any sanction for noncompliance with the notice requirements. The only proscription against commencement of an action against a governmental entity without prior notice is found in subsection 4. Second, I note that subsection 4 is entitled “Substantial notice compliance required.” The very sentence containing the proscription provides that no claim shall be commenced “unless the foregoing notice provisions are substantially complied with.” (Emphasis added.) Although the majority would not eliminate the content requirements from the substantial compliance exception, they would eliminate the timeliness requirement. No rational reason appears why the term “foregoing provisions,” as used in subsection 4, does not encompass all notice requirements rather than only the “form requirements” of paragraphs A-E of subsection 1 as suggested by the majority.
Furthermore, in my view, the application of the substantial compliance exception should be guided by subsection 4’s provision that a claim “shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of an inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the claim, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the governmental entity was in fact prejudiced thereby.” (Emphasis added.) The Legislature has established in subsection 4 the criterion by which “substantial compliance” should be measured. An untimely notice within the two-year period of limitation substantially complies with the statutory requirement unless the governmental entity can show prejudice as a result of noncompliance. For all of the above reasons I must respectfully dissent.

. The State asserts in its brief that it is clear “that the [Legislature intended to limit the State’s exposure to liability under the Act by requiring notice of the claim within 180 days of injury, unless good cause for delay was shown.” The Legislature did limit exposure by explicitly defining the activities for which liability attaches, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104, and by including a two-year period of limitation, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8110. No support exists, however, for the proposition that the Legislature intended noncompliance with the notice provisions of the *352Act to operate as an additional limitation of exposure.