Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103 (2026)

Immunity from suit

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Immunity. Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages. When immunity is removed by this chapter, any claim for damages shall be brought in accordance with the terms of this chapter.

[PL 1977, c. 578, §1 (RPR).]

2. Examples.

[PL 1987, c. 740, §1 (RP).]

3. Personal liability; employee of a governmental entity.

[PL 1987, c. 740, §2 (RP).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 578, §1 (RPR). PL 1977, c. 591, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 569, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 599, §2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 758, §2 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 110 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 218, §2 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 402, §A103 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 740, §§1,2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 119 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89 (Me. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89 (Me. 2010). · cites it 6× “See 14 M.R.S. §§ 8103, 8104-A (2009). It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to open the door to governmental liability in the operation of buildings and their appurtenances where regular maintenance plans and attention minimize the possibility of…”

Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “In response, the defendants collectively filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to absolute governmental immunity in accordance with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980) and § 8111(1)(Q (Pamph.”

Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). Therefore, we first determine whether MDOT was immune from suit in this case because an affirmative finding would require us to vacate the judgment without inquiry into the expert witness issue.”

Est. of Fortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50 (Me. 2010). · cites it 6× “" 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). Exceptions to the general rule are set out in 14 M.”

Moore v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 612 (Me. 1991). · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980 & Supp.1990) [4] ; Young v.”

Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “Even if plaintiffs succeeded in fitting their theory into one of the limited areas of governmental liability authorized in section 8104, they could not ultimately prevail, for by its terms any express retention of immunity listed in section 8103(2) operates “notwithstanding” the…”

Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh, 850 A.2d 325 (Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “The Town contends that the Superior Court erred by finding that the freestanding trash bin constitutes an appurtenance to a pubhe building, thus removing the Town from the immunity provisions of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8103(1), 8104-A(2) (2003).”

Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “State law claims against AMHI The Superior Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim against AMHI based upon the broad immunity provided governmental entities under the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980). The Act defines “governmental entity” to…”

McLain v. Milligan, 847 F. Supp. 970 (D. Me. 1994). · cites it 4× “§§ 8103 & 8116 Defendant Town of Rumford asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on all Counts alleging tort violations because it is immune from civil damages suits under section 8103 of the Maine Tort Claims Act.”

Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103 (1980). Plaintiff's claim, therefore, rests solely upon statutory authority and must comply with those conditions imposed by statute.”

Hinkley v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 2002 ME 70 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 3 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103 (1980). Section 8104-A provides exceptions to the state’s immunity for injuries caused by such things as the negligent operation of state vehicles, the negligent construction and maintenance of state buildings, the accidental discharge of pollutants, and…”

Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103 (1980 & Supp. 1998); Adriance v.”

Show all 119 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(1) — 67 cases

Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24 (Me. 2003). “In response, the defendants collectively filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to absolute governmental immunity in accordance with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980) and § 8111(1)(Q (Pamph.”

Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). “14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). Therefore, we first determine whether MDOT was immune from suit in this case because an affirmative finding would require us to vacate the judgment without inquiry into the expert witness issue.”

Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89 (Me. 2010). “See 14 M.R.S. §§ 8103, 8104-A (2009). It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to open the door to governmental liability in the operation of buildings and their appurtenances where regular maintenance plans and attention minimize the possibility of…”

Est. of Fortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50 (Me. 2010). “" 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). Exceptions to the general rule are set out in 14 M.”

Moore v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 612 (Me. 1991). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980 & Supp.1990) [4] ; Young v.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(2) — 1 case

Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981). “Even if plaintiffs succeeded in fitting their theory into one of the limited areas of governmental liability authorized in section 8104, they could not ultimately prevail, for by its terms any express retention of immunity listed in section 8103(2) operates “notwithstanding” the…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(2)(B) — 1 case

Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981). “Even if plaintiffs succeeded in fitting their theory into one of the limited areas of governmental liability authorized in section 8104, they could not ultimately prevail, for by its terms any express retention of immunity listed in section 8103(2) operates “notwithstanding” the…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(2)(F)(3) — 1 case

Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(2)(J) — 2 cases

Donovan v. City of Portland, 850 A.2d 319 (Me. 2004).

Swallow v. City of Lewiston, 534 A.2d 975 (Me. 1987).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8103(3) — 2 cases

Springer v. Seaman, 658 F. Supp. 1502 (D. Me. 1987).

MacKerron v. Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me. 1984).

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.