 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Porter v. Philbrick-Gates2/28/2000
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: February 7, 2000
David and Rhonda Porter appeal the judgment of the Superior Court (Somerset County, Kravchuk, J.) granting a summary judgment in favor of defendants, Katherine Philbrick-Gates, Michael Nelson, and Richard Pratt (Philbrick-Gates). The Porters contend that the court erred by ruling that they failed to show good cause within the meaning of the "good cause" exception to the 180-day notice requirement of section 8107 of the Maine Tort Claims Act, Title 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118 (1980 & Supp. 1999). We affirm.
The facts that give rise to this case involve interactions between the Porter's son and school employees in November 1996 and the son's suicide in December 1996, for which the Porters seek to hold the school employees responsible. The Porters met with school officials and stated their claim that school employees were responsible for their son's death on January 2, 1997. Subsequently, the Porters spoke with several attorneys about the case before present counsel was retained in late 1997. The notice of claim was not filed until May 1998, and suit was filed December 24, 1998.
The parties agreed to a staged discovery schedule and conducted discovery solely on the issue of whether good cause existed for the Porters to miss the 180-day filing requirement. At the close of this preliminary discovery stage, Philbrick-Gates filed a motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted the motion and entered a summary judgment in favor of Philbrick-Gates. The Porters filed a timely appeal to this Court.
Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, a party with a cause of action against a governmental entity must file a notice of claim within 180-days of the accrual of the action unless he or she "shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been filed" within that time frame. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1); Cottle Enters., Inc. v. Town of Farmington, 1997 ME 78, § 15, 693 A.2d 330, 334-35. Failure to comply bars the suit. See Begin v. City of Auburn, 574 A.2d 888, 889 (Me. 1990). We have interpreted "good cause" to require a showing that the plaintiff was unable to file a claim or was meaningfully prevented from learning of the information forming the basis for his or her complaint. See Smith v. Voisine, 650 A.2d 1350, 1352 (Me. 1994); McNicholas v. Bickford, 612 A.2d 866, 869-70 (Me. 1992).
On appeal the Porters contend that because their claim is a wrongful death action, 14 M.R.S.A. § 160 (1980); 18-A M.R.S.A. § 2-804 (1998), there should be a special exception to the good cause requirement and the 180p;day notice deadline since the party allegedly wronged is deceased and gathering evidence is more difficult.
The wrongful death law anticipates tort claims actions and explicitly makes such actions subject to the limitations of the Maine Tort Claims Act. See 18-A M.R.S.A. § 2-804(d) (1998). The Tort Claims Act similarly anticipates wrongful death actions but does not create the exception claimed by plaintiffs. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-C (Supp. 1999). Thus, the regular notice requirements of the Maine Tort Claims Act apply to wrongful death actions.
The Porters also argue that they deserve a good cause exception from the 180-day notice requirement because they were overcome with loss during this period; because child witnesses were unwilling to come forward within this period; and because the Porters did not have a reasonable basis to believe they had a suit against the school employees until well after the 180-day period had expired.
In Begin v. City of Auburn, 574 A.2d 888 (Me. 1990), we rejected the plaintiffs' good cause argument based on a
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|