recovery of warranty damages from suppliers for the failure of covered parts. Our conclusion that O’Neal has not shown himself to be incompetent is consistent with the decision of our court of appeals in Whatcott v. Whatcott, 790 P.2d 578 (Utah Ct.App.1990), where the plaintiff raised the same incompetence argument. In Whatcott, the court rejected the claim that repression and psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse could be the basis for a finding of incompetency that would toll a statute of limitations. To support its conclusion of mental competence, the court specifically noted that plaintiff Whatcott, like O’Neal in this case, participated in what could be characterized as more or less normal activities. Id. at 581; see also Strata v. Patin, 545 So.2d 1180, 1192 (La. Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 550 So.2d 618 (La.1989); John
holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation holding that psychological trauma resulting from abuse that impedes disclosure does not constitute mental incapacity for purposes of statute of limitations holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable