Court Opinion

ID: 9643680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:37:26.335541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.233684
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the Court despite the absence of any showing of prejudice to the City of Auburn due to Faucher’s failure to comply with the 180 day notice provision. I have previously expressed concern about such an application of Section 8107(1) of the MTCA. Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345, 351-52 (Me.1982) (Roberts, J., dissenting); see also Taylor v. Hill, 464 A.2d 938, at 946 (Me.1983) (Roberts, J., dissenting in part). In this instance, however, the Court’s prior holdings in Erickson and in Nadeau v. City of South Portland, 424 A.2d 715 (Me.1981), require that we affirm the dismissal of Faucher’s complaint.