# Taylor v. Hill

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · August 26, 1983 · 464 A.2d 938

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705055

## Case

- **Full name:** Carol TAYLOR and Russell Taylor v. Allison HILL
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** August 26, 1983
- **Citations:** 464 A.2d 938; 1983 Me. LEXIS 788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** McKusick, Godfrey, Nichols, Roberts, Violette, Wathen
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705055

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting locality rule; declining to consider “what role, if any, geography will play with regard to the standard of care applicable to non-specialists”

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I join in Part I of the Court’s opinion. I cannot concur, however, in Part II. In my view the record in this case exposes the unfairness of the rule established in Givertz v. Maine Medical Center, 459 A.2d 548 (Me.1983). By application of the Givertz rule Russell Taylor’s suit is dismissed without any hint of prejudice to the defendant as a result of lack of notice. See Givertz, 459 A.2d at 556 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
The procedural history of this case demonstrates how the Givertz rule undermines the legitimate function of the notice requirement as outlined in Dougherty v. Oliviero, 427 A.2d 487 (Me.1981). When this action was commenced the defendant did not seek relief pursuant to Dougherty . Rather, he simply alleged enigmatically that plaintiffs “failed to perform all conditions precedent required by law.... ” The defendant lay in wait behind that vague allegation until after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. Then, for the first time, the defendant made specific reference to Russell Taylor’s failure to give notice pursuant to 24 M.R.S.A. § 2903. Clever defense counsel has turned section 2903 into “a trap for the unwary.” See Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345, 351 (Me.1982) (Roberts, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705055. Public record. Not legal advice.