immunity waiver in Maine

2008We disagreed, stating that " section 8104-B(3) provides a governmental entity with discretionary function immunity despite section 8104-A " Norton, 2003 ME 118, ¶ 11 , 834 A.2d at 932 (emphasis added); see also Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 , ¶ 6 n. 3, 736 A.2d 279, 282 ("Notwithstanding the immunity waiver provisions of section 8104-A, section 8104-B expressly retains certain types of immunity for governmental entities, including discretionary function immunity.").

2008We disagreed, stating that " section 8104-B(3) provides a governmental entity with discretionary function immunity despite section 8104-A " Norton, 2003 ME 118, ¶ 11 , 834 A.2d at 932 (emphasis added); see also Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 , ¶ 6 n. 3, 736 A.2d 279, 282 ("Notwithstanding the immunity waiver provisions of section 8104-A, section 8104-B expressly retains certain types of immunity for governmental entities, including discretionary function immunity.").

2026Id. at 22, 28 . [¶13] The First Circuit determined that Massachusetts had a significant interest in the extent to which its residents were compensated for workplace injuries, as well as in allocating liability for that compensation—specifically, in permitting insurers to recoup benefits from third parties, thereby decreasing the cost of workers’ compensation insurance.

2018See Picard v. Brennan , 307 A.2d 833 , 834-35 (Me. 1973) (explaining that because a defendant can claim truth as a defense against a claim for defamation, the "defendant is ... entitled to know precisely what statement is attributed to him" both in the pleadings and in the evidence presented at trial). 6 We are not persuaded by Argereow's assertion that Weisberg waived the immunity defense by not having included it in his responses to earlier iterations of her complaint.

2008We disagreed, stating that " section 8104-B(3) provides a governmental entity with discretionary function immunity despite section 8104-A " Norton, 2003 ME 118, ¶ 11 , 834 A.2d at 932 (emphasis added); see also Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 , ¶ 6 n. 3, 736 A.2d 279, 282 ("Notwithstanding the immunity waiver provisions of section 8104-A, section 8104-B expressly retains certain types of immunity for governmental entities, including discretionary function immunity.").

2008We disagreed, stating that " section 8104-B(3) provides a governmental entity with discretionary function immunity despite section 8104-A " Norton, 2003 ME 118, ¶ 11 , 834 A.2d at 932 (emphasis added); see also Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 , ¶ 6 n. 3, 736 A.2d 279, 282 ("Notwithstanding the immunity waiver provisions of section 8104-A, section 8104-B expressly retains certain types of immunity for governmental entities, including discretionary function immunity.").

2005Co., 2001 ME 8, ¶ 6 , 764 A.2d 258, 263 (holding "that the denial of an employer’s motion for summary judgment, based on a claim of immunity pursuant to the exclusivity portion of the Workers’ Compensation Act, is immediately reviewable”); but see Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (stating that a defendant who is entitled to an immunity defense may not immediately appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion “insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial”). 2 .

2005Co., 2001 ME 8, ¶ 6 , 764 A.2d 258, 263 (holding "that the denial of an employer’s motion for summary judgment, based on a claim of immunity pursuant to the exclusivity portion of the Workers’ Compensation Act, is immediately reviewable”); but see Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (stating that a defendant who is entitled to an immunity defense may not immediately appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion “insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial”). 2 .

2002Therefore, the court does not address the procedural issue noted in Campbell v. Washington County Technical College, 219 F.3d 3, 8 (1* Cir. 2000) — an issue not raised or addressed by the parties at bar — of whether a judge or a jury is the proper decision- maker of an immunity claim based on an undisputed record.

1999See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B (Supp.1998). [4] Discretionary function immunity "preserve[s] independence of action without deterrence or intimidation by the fear of personal liability and vexatious suits." Grossman, 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 6, 722 A.2d at 373 (quotations omitted). "[T]ort liability should not be imposed for conduct of a type for which the imposition of liability would substantially impair the effective performance of a discretionary function." Id. (quotations omitted).

1999See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B (Supp.1998). [4] Discretionary function immunity "preserve[s] independence of action without deterrence or intimidation by the fear of personal liability and vexatious suits." Grossman, 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 6, 722 A.2d at 373 (quotations omitted). "[T]ort liability should not be imposed for conduct of a type for which the imposition of liability would substantially impair the effective performance of a discretionary function." Id. (quotations omitted).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986).

1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986).