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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 161 (2026)

When lack of privity no defense in action against manufacturer, seller or supplier of goods

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant shall be no defense in any action brought against the manufacturer, seller or supplier of goods under Title 14, section 221 or for negligence, although the plaintiff did not purchase the goods from the defendant, if the plaintiff was a person whom the manufacturer, seller or supplier might reasonably have expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods.   [PL 1973, c. 788, §57 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 327, §2 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 441, §2 (RPR). PL 1973, c. 788, §57 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982). · cites it 6× “§ 2-318 and to 14 M.R.S.A. § 161. P.L. 1973, ch. 441 (L.”
Burke v. Hamilton Beach Div., 424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981). · cites it 8× “At the same time, in 1969, the legislature enacted 14 M.R.S.A. § 161, which abrogated privity requirements in all negligence and breach of warranty suits.”
Hurd v. Hurd, 423 A.2d 960 (Me. 1981). · cites it 6× “327, § 2, enacting 14 M.R.S.A. § 161. The legislature in each instance expressly declared its intention *964 that these enactments should not be given retrospective effect.”
McNally v. Nicholson Mfg. Co., 313 A.2d 913 (Me. 1973). · cites it 6× “the plaintiff’s right to recovery not [being] affected by the passage of 14 M.R.S.A. § 161, expressly inapplicable to transactions occurring prior to October 1, 1969.”
Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 342 A.2d 712 (Me. 1975). “327, § 2, now, as amended, 14 M.R.S.A. § 161), it did not choose to make any special provision for limitation of actions in the new area of liability which it had legislatively established, leaving the plain language of *719 the general statute controlling.”
Dunlap v. Aulson Corp., 90 F.R.D. 647 (D.N.H. 1981). “14 M.R.S.A. § 161; Burke, supra, 424 A.2d at 147 ; Hurd, supra, 423 A.”
Goodman v. Magnavox Co., 443 A.2d 945 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 161, enacted by P.L. 1969, ch.”
Grendell v. State of Maine, No. 1:19-cv-00419 (D. Me. July 10, 2020). “9 9 Grendell, citing 14 M.R.S.A § 161 and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt.”
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.