Goode v. State, 87-014
| Decision Date | 30 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-014,87-014 |
| Parties | Kenneth E. GOODE v. STATE of Vermont. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
In Goode v. State, 147 Vt. 646, 514 A.2d 322 (1986) (mem.), this Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and remanded for fact finding on his claim that the statute of limitations, which the trial court found had run, was tolled by plaintiff's insanity. See 12 V.S.A. § 551. On remand the trial court found that the statute of limitations was not tolled and again dismissed the action because: (1) according to his testimony plaintiff was insane solely with respect to this litigation and could function in all other parts of his life, and, thus, in the court's view, was not "insane"; and (2) the court did not believe the expert testimony offered by plaintiff personally as an expert witness.
We agree with the trial court that the tolling provision, 12 V.S.A. § 551, requires more than a mental impairment affecting solely the lawsuit in issue. McCarthy v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 55 N.Y.2d 543, 435 N.E.2d 1072, 450 N.Y.S.2d 457 (1980); Decker v. Fink, 47 Md.App. 202, 422 A.2d 389 (1980); see also Harrington v. County of Ramsey, 279 N.W.2d 791, 795 (Minn.1979) (); Goewey v. United States, 612 F.2d 539, 544, 222 Ct.Cl. 104 (1979) (). Since the trial court found, based on plaintiff's testimony, that plaintiff was in no other way disabled in his life and could handle every aspect of his life including business and legal responsibilities except those connected with this suit, the court correctly found that plaintiff did not come within the tolling provision.
The trial court also acted within its discretion in rejecting the expert testimony supplied by plaintiff testifying as a psychologist. Plaintiff had the burden of proof to show he came within the tolling provision. Merrill v. Reville, 135 Vt. 517, 521, 380 A.2d 96, 98-99 (1977). His only evidence in support of his position was his own testimony. While the trial court is required to consider and weigh expert testimony, it is not required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fila v. Spruce Mountain Inn
...to March 7, 2001. Alone, her testimony is insufficient to create a question of fact under the Goode I standard. See Goode v. State, 150 Vt. 651, 652, 553 A.2d 142, 143 (1988) (mem.) (noting that plaintiff's only evidence was his own testimony, and in light of the evidence, plaintiff failed ......
-
Cooperative Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Combs
...is not excluded. Intervenors contend that our case law is consistent with the Globe- Turner line of cases. See Goode v. State, 150 Vt. 651, 652, 553 A.2d 142, 142-43 (1988) (quoting with approval Goewey v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 104, 612 F.2d 539, 544 (1979), that term "insane" means "a ......
-
Kindle, In re
...Vermont rejected the argument that a party can be mentally incapacitated only for the matter at issue in litigation. In Goode v. State, 150 Vt. 651, 553 A.2d 142 (1988), the court held its tolling provision "requires more than a mental impairment affecting solely the lawsuit in issue." It a......
-
Costello v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network Inc., 2:94-CV-151.
...§ 551 and remanding for further fact finding when record incomplete on state of plaintiff's mental health), appeal after remand, 150 Vt. 651, 553 A.2d 142 (1988). Moreover, there is at least some evidence in the record to support Costello's claim that he lacked the ability to handle his aff......