Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 163 (2026)

Release of joint tortfeasors

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a person seeks recovery for a personal injury or property damage caused by 2 or more persons, the settlement with or release of one or more of the persons causing the injury is not a bar to a subsequent action against the other person or persons also causing the injury. [PL 1999, c. 633, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]

Evidence of settlement with a release of one or more persons causing the injury is not admissible at a subsequent trial against the other person or persons also causing the injury. After the jury has returned its verdict, the trial judge shall inquire of the attorneys for the parties whether such a settlement or release has occurred. If such settlement or release has occurred, the trial judge shall reduce the verdict by an amount equal to the settlement with or the consideration for the release of the other persons. With regard to a settlement in which the plaintiff has entered into an agreement that precludes the plaintiff from collecting against remaining parties that portion of any damages attributable to the settling defendant's share of responsibility, the judge shall reduce the plaintiff's judgment by either the amount determined at trial to be attributable to the settling defendant's share of responsibility, if any was found, or, if no such finding is made, by the value of the consideration given to the plaintiff for the settlement. [PL 1999, c. 633, §2 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1969, c. 19 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 633, §2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 633, §3 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Thurston v. 3K Kamper Ko., Inc., 482 A.2d 837 (Me. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thurston v. 3K Kamper Ko., Inc., 482 A.2d 837 (Me. 1984). · cites it 18× “However, in response to a motion in limine and in accordance with 14 M.R.S.A. § 163, the court ordered that no reference be made to the settling defendants as parties or former parties to the litigation, or to the fact that a settlement with them had been reached.”

Hoitt v. Hall, 661 A.2d 669 (Me. 1995). · cites it 8× “Eileen assumes the trial court applied 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980), [2] which it explicitly, and correctly, did not apply.”

Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea, 467 A.2d 986 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “Lea bases his entitlement to this partial release upon the provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 163, which state as follows: Whenever a person seeks recovery for a personal injury or property damage caused by 2 or more persons, the settlement with or release of one or more of the persons…”

Dongo v. Banks, 448 A.2d 885 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “The situation is governed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980), authorizing the trial judge to reduce the verdict by the amount of the settlement in an action against joint tort- *894 feasors.”

Cnty. Forest Prods., Inc. v. Green Mountain Agency, Inc., 2000 ME 161 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “If the latter is true, Green Mountain and the insurers are entitled to have the judgment against them reduced by the settlement amount as required by 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980). 11 Because the trial court’s findings on the issue of the reduction of the judgment and the cross-claim…”

Moore v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 773 S.W.2d 78 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 52-572e(b) (1985); Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 163 (1964); Mich.”

Hewitt v. Bahmueller, 584 A.2d 664 (Me. 1991). · cites it 4× “After a jury verdict for Hewitt in the amount of $180,000, the court pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980) reduced the verdict by the amount of Hewitt’s pretrial settlements with Charles Bah-mueller and Mobile Travelers, Inc.”

Mockus v. Melanson, 615 A.2d 245 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “2 Set-off is required by law pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980), 3 not merely available on request.”

Fuller v. State, 490 A.2d 1200 (Me. 1985). · cites it 3× “The State maintains that the Rule 68 judgment should bring 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 into operation, permitting the State to reduce the $30,000 judgment against the State by the $25,000 settlement paid by Downs.”

Stacey v. Bangor Punta Corp., 108 F.R.D. 72 (D. Me. 1985). · cites it 4× “1 The holding in part three of Thurston, supra, is that participation by a defendant in submitting a case to the jury so as to seek a precise adjudication of the respective levels of causal fault attributable to parties who are alleged to be joint tortfeasors waives any…”

Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 618 A.2d 214 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs contend that in an action against a server, the language of section 2512(1) must be read in conjunction with 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980), which provides that the release of *219 one tortfeasor “shall not be a bar to a subsequent action against the other person .”

Tibbetts v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 618 A.2d 731 (Me. 1992). “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980) (mandatory reduction of verdict by amount of previous settlements) and 14 M.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

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.