Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 156 (2026)

Comparative negligence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When any person suffers death or damage as a result partly of that person's own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that death or damage may not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof must be reduced to such extent as the jury thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.   [PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
When damages are recoverable by any person by virtue of this section, subject to such reduction as is mentioned, the court shall instruct the jury to find and record the total damages that would have been recoverable if the claimant had not been at fault, and further instruct the jury to reduce the total damages by dollars and cents, and not by percentage, to the extent considered just and equitable, having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damages, and instruct the jury to return both amounts with the knowledge that the lesser figure is the final verdict in the case.   [PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
Fault means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission that gives rise to a liability in tort or would, apart from this section, give rise to the defense of contributory negligence.   [PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
If such claimant is found by the jury to be equally at fault, the claimant may not recover.   [PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
In a case involving multiparty defendants, each defendant is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages. However, any defendant has the right through the use of special interrogatories to request of the jury the percentage of fault contributed by each defendant. If a defendant is released by the plaintiff under an agreement that precludes the plaintiff from collecting against remaining parties that portion of any damages attributable to the released defendant's share of responsibility, then the following rules apply.   [PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
1.  General rule.  The released defendant is entitled to be dismissed with prejudice from the case. The dismissal bars all related claims for contribution assertable by remaining parties against the released defendant.  
[PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
2.  Post-dismissal procedures.  The trial court must preserve for the remaining parties a fair opportunity to adjudicate the liability of the released and dismissed defendant. Remaining parties may conduct discovery against a released and dismissed defendant and invoke evidentiary rules at trial as if the released and dismissed defendant were still a party.  
[PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
3.  Binding effect.  To apportion responsibility in the pending action for claims that were included in the settlement and presented at trial, a finding on the issue of the released and dismissed defendant's liability binds all parties to the suit, but such a finding has no binding effect in other actions relating to other damage claims.  
[PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 383 (NEW). PL 1965, c. 424 (NEW). PL 1965, c. 513, §27 (RP). PL 1969, c. 399, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 8 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 633, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 960 A.2d 1188 (Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 960 A.2d 1188 (Me. 2008). · cites it 5× “She also argued that because 14 M.R.S. § 156 (2007) requires juries to calculate comparative negligence in “dollars and cents, and not by percentage,” it was improper for the Court to convert the $200,000 in comparative negligence into a percentage of the original award.”
Hoitt v. Hall, 661 A.2d 669 (Me. 1995). · cites it 10× “We need not reach this issue because the jury found John's negligence to be less than that of the State, a finding that entitled Eileen to recover.”
Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1983). · cites it 2× “1983); Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 156 (1964); Mass.”
Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 ME 63 (Me. 2000). · cites it 4× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 (1980). If the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than that of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover damages.”
Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 2× “(10) Maine, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 156 (1964). (11) Massachusetts, Mass.”
Pelletier v. Fort Kent Golf Club, 662 A.2d 220 (Me. 1995). · cites it 4× “The Pelletiers contend that because the damage award to Jeannine violates the provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 (1980) and the jury’s failure to award damages to Gerard was without rational explanation, the tl'ial court abused its discretion in denying them motion for a new trial.”
Hurd v. Hurd, 423 A.2d 960 (Me. 1981). · cites it 6× “He subsequently issued a written opinion also dismissing plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer, basing dismissal of the warranty claim on lack of privity and dismissal of the negligence claim on a finding that defendant Clark had not violated any duty of care in designing…”
Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 471 A.2d 280 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “76B, the United States District Court for the District of Maine has certified to our court the following question of Maine law: Is Maine’s comparative negligence statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 [1980], applicable to plaintiff’s claim in this action based on 14 M.”
Lippard v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 715 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 2× “1985); Me.Rev. Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 156 (1964); Mich.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 2013 ME 37 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 760; see also 14 M.R.S. § 156 (2012). Accordingly, the court determined that CMP was not likely to recover a judgment “in an amount equal to or greater than the aggregate sum” requested in its motion for attachment.”
Minott v. FW Cunningham & Sons, 413 A.2d 1325 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “Under the comparative negligence statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 156, a defendant has the burden of showing the contributory fault of a plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence.”
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). “1992); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 156 (1980); Mass.”
Show all 147 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 156(1) — 1 case
Hill v. Sullivan (Me. Super. Ct 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.