Nadeau v. City of South Portland
| Decision Date | 22 January 1981 |
| Citation | 424 A.2d 715 |
| Parties | Marion NADEAU v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Thompson, Willard & McNaboe, David M. Hirshon (orally), Thomas R. McNaboe, Neal K. Stillman, Portland, for plaintiff.
Norman & Hanson, Mark G. Lavoie (orally), Peter J. DeTroy, III, Portland, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C. J., and WERNICK, GODFREY, NICHOLS, GLASSMAN, ROBERTS and CARTER, JJ.
The Superior Court (Cumberland County) has presented this case to us on Report, pursuant to Rule 72(c) M.R.Civ.P. which is entitled "Report of Interlocutory Rulings."
We discharge the Report as improvident.
Frank Nadeau, a mentally retarded minor, was injured on January 27, 1978 at a construction site in the City of South Portland where a construction contractor, under contract with the City, was installing a sewer line. More than twenty-two months later, on December 3, 1979, an attorney gave written notice to the City that Frank Nadeau had a tort claim against it for personal injury. Nine days thereafter, Marion Nadeau, as the next friend of her son Frank, commenced a civil action against the City, alleging that its negligence caused Frank's injuries. The City moved to dismiss the action on the ground of plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Section 8107(1) 1 of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101 et seq.
After a hearing, at which the presiding justice considered not only plaintiff's complaint but also affidavits and various exhibits, the justice denied the motion to dismiss.
Upon motion by defendant City, the justice subsequently determined to order the instant interlocutory Report to this Court. In his order of report the justice said that he deemed an interlocutory Report "appropriate" because he knew of "conflicting decisions ... (by) the Superior Court as to the proper interpretation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107."
Notwithstanding the reason the justice assigned for ordering this Report, we must discharge it.
The basis of the justice's decision refusing to hold plaintiff's action barred for non-compliance with Section 8107(1) was his conclusion that circumstances were present which "indicate(d) ... good cause ... why notice was not given within the 180 day period." The justice, however, offered no explanation of his conception of the meaning of "good cause" as used in Section 8107(1), thus to crystallize, and identify, a genuine issue of law to be decided.
Determinations as to the presence or absence of "good cause", in one statutory context or another, generally tend to be so interlaced with factual threadings that only rarely will appellate review unravel from the factual threads a specific question of law relating to statutory interpretation. Rather, in such cases the appellate decision usually will focus upon whether the lower court's determination was "clearly erroneous", either in its findings of fact or in its ultimate conclusion that the facts as found did, or did not constitute "good cause."
The instant case, in our view, presents such a typical fact-oriented "good cause" situation. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hosp.
...requirements under 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1). The question of good cause is itself a question of fact. See Nadeau v. City of South Portland, 424 A.2d 715, 716 (Me.1981) (per curiam). Although the Superior Court's order did not expressly address the plaintiff's good cause argument, we assume tha......
-
In re September 11 Litigation, 21 MC 97(AKH).
...of the claim. Peters, 787 A.2d at 143. Whether the "good cause" standard has been met is a question of fact. See Nadeau v. City of South Portland, 424 A.2d 715 (Me.1981). Plaintiffs argue that they have good cause for their failure to file a timely notice because of the difficulty of sortin......
-
MacKerron v. Madura
...these factual issues unresolved, immunity could not be asserted as grounds for the dismissal in this case. See Nadeau v. City of South Portland, Me., 424 A.2d 715, 717 n.2 (1981). Invasion of In reviewing the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim of invasion of privacy, w......
-
Faucher v. City of Auburn
...(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 * We change the title of the case from City of Auburn School Department to ......