John E. Deschenes v. City of Sanford
137 A.3d 198
Me.2016Background
- On Feb 17, 2012, Deschenes fell down stairs at Sanford City Hall, was treated on scene and transported to the ER. He told city employees about the fall that day.
- City employees inspected the stairs and internal staff (Clerk, Facilities Director, Finance office) were informed the day of the fall.
- Deschenes returned to City Hall on Aug 13, 2012 (178 days after the fall), spoke with Finance staff, gave a hospital ER note and VA payment summary, and said he understood the 180-day limit; he also told them he was not going to sue.
- Written notice of claim was sent by Deschenes’s attorney on Sept 1, 2012 (197 days after the fall); suit was filed Jan 28, 2014.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing the MTCA requires filing written notice within 180 days and that any written notice was late; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral notice within 180 days can constitute "substantial compliance" with the Maine Tort Claims Act notice requirement | Deschenes: substantial compliance exists because the City had timely notice (oral) and was not prejudiced | City: MTCA requires written notice filed within 180 days; oral notice is insufficient | Court: Oral notice can never constitute substantial compliance; written notice must be filed within 180 days |
| Whether defects in notice that are not written (e.g., oral communications) can be cured by showing lack of prejudice | Deschenes: lack of prejudice and awareness satisfy §8107(4) substantial-compliance test | City: §8107(4) applies only when the written-filing requirement of §8107(1) is satisfied | Court: §8107(4) applies only after the 180-day written-filing requirement is met; lack of prejudice does not excuse absence of timely written filing |
| Whether Deschenes’s Aug 13 communications satisfied filing-with-proper-officials requirement | Deschenes: his Aug 13 visit and handing documents to Finance staff provided sufficient notice | City: he did not file with officials designated for service and he denied intent to sue | Court: communications did not satisfy filing-with-proper-officials or content requirements and did not amount to substantial compliance |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment | Deschenes: factual disputes preclude summary judgment on substantial-compliance question | City: undisputed facts show no timely written filing; summary judgment appropriate | Court: de novo review affirms summary judgment for City because no timely written filing was made and oral notice cannot satisfy MTCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983) (discusses oral notice and finds trial court reasoning persuasive that oral notice is more than a defect in form)
- Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345 (Me. 1982) (holds substantial-compliance exception applies only when the 180‑day written requirement is satisfied)
- Cushman v. Tilton, 652 A.2d 650 (Me. 1995) (failure to comply with MTCA notice provision bars the claim)
- Kelly v. Univ. of Me., 623 A.2d 169 (Me. 1993) (notice to an institution that is not sufficient in form or content does not constitute substantial compliance)
- Pepperman v. Barrett, 661 A.2d 1124 (Me. 1995) (service must be made on officials designated to receive process)