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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B (2026)

Immunity notwithstanding waiver

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding section 8104‑A, a governmental entity is not liable for any claim which results from:   [PL 1987, c. 740, §4 (NEW).]
1.  Undertaking of legislative act.  Undertaking or failing to undertake any legislative or quasi-legislative act, including, but not limited to, the adoption or failure to adopt any statute, charter, ordinance, order, rule, policy, resolution or resolve;  
[PL 1987, c. 740, §4 (NEW).]
2.  Undertaking of judicial act.  Undertaking or failing to undertake any judicial or quasi-judicial act, including, but not limited to, the granting, granting with conditions, refusal to grant or revocation of any license, permit, order or other administrative approval or denial;  
[PL 1987, c. 740, §4 (NEW).]
3.  Performing discretionary function.  Performing or failing to perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused and whether or not any statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution or policy under which the discretionary function or duty is performed is valid or invalid, except that if the discretionary function involves the operation of a motor vehicle, as defined in Title 29‑A, section 101, subsection 42, this section does not provide immunity for the governmental entity for an employee's negligent operation of the motor vehicle resulting in a collision, regardless of whether the employee has immunity under this chapter;  
[PL 2005, c. 448, §1 (AMD).]
4.  Performing prosecutorial function.  Performing or failing to perform any prosecutorial function involving civil, criminal or administrative enforcement;  
[PL 1987, c. 740, §4 (NEW).]
5.  Activities of state military forces.  The activities of the state military forces when on duty pursuant to Title 37‑B or 32 United States Code;  
[PL 1995, c. 196, Pt. D, §2 (AMD).]
6.  Leasing of governmental property.  The leasing of governmental property, including buildings, to other organizations;  
[PL 1999, c. 456, §1 (AMD).]
7.  Certain services.  A decision not to provide communications, heat, light, water, electricity or solid or liquid waste collection, disposal or treatment services; and  
[PL 1999, c. 456, §1 (AMD).]
8.  Failure or malfunction of computer.  The direct or indirect failure or malfunction of computer hardware, computer software or any device containing a computer processor or chip that fails to accurately or properly recognize, calculate, display, sort or otherwise process dates or times as a result of the Year 2000 problem. This provision applies to failures or malfunctions occurring before January 2, 2001.  
For purposes of this section, the "Year 2000 problem" means complications associated with using a 2-digit field to represent a year and its result on the year change from 1999 to 2000. These complications may include, but are not limited to:  
A. Erroneous date calculations;   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
B. An ambiguous interpretation of the term "00";   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
C. The failure to recognize the year 2000 as a leap year;   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
D. The use of algorithms that use the term "99" or "00" as a flag for another function;   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
E. Problems arising from the use of applications, software or hardware that are date sensitive; and   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
F. The inability to distinguish between centuries.   [PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 1999, c. 456, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 740, §4 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 196, §D2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 456, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 448, §1 (AMD).
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 50 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003). · cites it 12× “The court concluded that Hall's choice to engage in an emergency response was a discretionary function, rendering Hall and the County defendants immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3) and 8111(1)(C), and that they were entitled to…”
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). · cites it 7× “14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(1)-(5). The nature of these five categories of immunity in section 8104-B establishes that it is intended to provide absolute immunity for acts that are uniquely governmental.”
Est. of Patrick P. Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13 (Me. 2013). · cites it 5× “Title 14 M.R.S. § 8104-B (2012) provides, in relevant part: Notwithstanding section 8104-A, a governmental entity is not liable for any claim which results from: 3.”
Jorgensen v. Dep't of Transp., 2009 ME 42 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “There is no dispute that the Department constitutes a government entity, and that the accident in question occurred during the Department’s performance of road construction within the meaning of section 8104-A(4).”
Est. of Fortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50 (Me. 2010). · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S. § 8104-B (2009). [3] The City of Lewiston is a governmental entity.”
Gomes v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 304 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “University of Maine Systems: Liability Insurance Coverage. Defendant University of Maine System moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ tort claims on the ground it is immune from suit under the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.”
Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24 (Me. 2003). “35 is protected by discretionary immunity pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B(3) (Pamph.2002). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.”
Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 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.”
Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield, 924 F. Supp. 1219 (D. Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 8101-A, as limited by 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B, and 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111 .”
Roberts v. State, 1999 ME 89 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3), 8111(1)(C) (Supp.”
Diva's, Inc. v. Bangor, City of, 411 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005). “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(2), 8111(1)(B). The Maine Tort Claims Act provides statutorily created absolute immunity for the City of Bangor and Individual Appellees from suit for claims “which result[ ] from .”
Wilcox v. City of Portland, 970 A.2d 295 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 8104-B(6); and (4) the City’s decisions regarding building maintenance were ministerial acts or matters subject to discretionary function immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(3). [¶ 8] Separately, the court determined that regardless of the…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(1) — 2 cases
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). “14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(1)-(5). The nature of these five categories of immunity in section 8104-B establishes that it is intended to provide absolute immunity for acts that are uniquely governmental.”
Lynch v. Town of Kittery, 677 A.2d 524 (Me. 1996).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(2) — 4 cases
Diva's, Inc. v. Bangor, City of, 411 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005). “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(2), 8111(1)(B). The Maine Tort Claims Act provides statutorily created absolute immunity for the City of Bangor and Individual Appellees from suit for claims “which result[ ] from .”
Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor, 176 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. Me. 2001).
Duchaine v. Town of Gorham (Me. Super. Ct 2001).
City of Old Town v. Dimoulas (Me. Super. Ct 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(3) — 31 cases
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003). “The court concluded that Hall's choice to engage in an emergency response was a discretionary function, rendering Hall and the County defendants immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3) and 8111(1)(C), and that they were entitled to…”
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). “14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(1)-(5). The nature of these five categories of immunity in section 8104-B establishes that it is intended to provide absolute immunity for acts that are uniquely governmental.”
Est. of Patrick P. Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13 (Me. 2013). “Title 14 M.R.S. § 8104-B (2012) provides, in relevant part: Notwithstanding section 8104-A, a governmental entity is not liable for any claim which results from: 3.”
Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24 (Me. 2003). “35 is protected by discretionary immunity pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B(3) (Pamph.2002). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.”
Roberts v. State, 1999 ME 89 (Me. 1999). “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3), 8111(1)(C) (Supp.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(3)(2005) — 1 case
Morgan v. Kooistra (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(4) — 1 case
Rice v. City of Biddeford (Me. Super. Ct 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(5) — 1 case
Thompson v. State of Maine, Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (Me. Super. Ct 2001).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(6) — 4 cases
Wilcox v. City of Portland, 970 A.2d 295 (Me. 2009). “§ 8104-B(6); and (4) the City’s decisions regarding building maintenance were ministerial acts or matters subject to discretionary function immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(3). [¶ 8] Separately, the court determined that regardless of the…”
Guimond v. City of Eastport (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Wilcox v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2008).
Wilcox v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(8) — 1 case
Est. of Patrick P. Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13 (Me. 2013). “Title 14 M.R.S. § 8104-B (2012) provides, in relevant part: Notwithstanding section 8104-A, a governmental entity is not liable for any claim which results from: 3.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(S) — 3 cases
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003). “The court concluded that Hall's choice to engage in an emergency response was a discretionary function, rendering Hall and the County defendants immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3) and 8111(1)(C), and that they were entitled to…”
Jorgensen v. Dep't of Transp., 2009 ME 42 (Me. 2009). “There is no dispute that the Department constitutes a government entity, and that the accident in question occurred during the Department’s performance of road construction within the meaning of section 8104-A(4).”
Perry v. Dean (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8104-B(l) — 1 case
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). “14 M.R.S. § 8104-B(1)-(5). The nature of these five categories of immunity in section 8104-B establishes that it is intended to provide absolute immunity for acts that are uniquely governmental.”
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.