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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111 (2026)

Personal immunity for employees; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Immunity.  Notwithstanding any liability that may have existed at common law, employees of governmental entities shall be absolutely immune from personal civil liability for the following:  
A. 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, §8 (RPR).]
B. 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, §8 (RPR).]
C. Performing or failing to perform any discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused; and whether or not any statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution, rule or resolve under which the discretionary function or duty is performed is valid;   [PL 1987, c. 740, §8 (RPR).]
D. Performing or failing to perform any prosecutorial function involving civil, criminal or administrative enforcement;   [PL 2001, c. 662, §7 (AMD).]
E. Any intentional act or omission within the course and scope of employment; provided that such immunity does not exist in any case in which an employee's actions are found to have been in bad faith; or   [PL 2001, c. 662, §8 (AMD).]
F. Any act by a member of the Maine National Guard within the course and scope of employment; except that immunity does not exist when an employee's actions are in bad faith or in violation of military orders while the employee is performing active state service pursuant to Title 37‑B.   [PL 2001, c. 662, §9 (NEW).]
The absolute immunity provided by paragraph C shall be applicable whenever a discretionary act is reasonably encompassed by the duties of the governmental employee in question, regardless of whether the exercise of discretion is specifically authorized by statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution, rule or resolve and shall be available to all governmental employees, including police officers and governmental employees involved in child welfare cases, who are required to exercise judgment or discretion in performing their official duties.  
[PL 2001, c. 662, §§7-9 (AMD).]
2.  Attachment and trustee process.  Attachment, pursuant to Rule 4A, Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, and trustee process, pursuant to Rule 4B, Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, shall not be used in connection with the commencement of a civil action against an employee of a governmental entity based on any act or omission of the employee in the course and scope of employment.  
[PL 1987, c. 740, §9 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 591, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 427, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 740, §§8,9 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 502, §A40 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 662, §§7-9 (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 120 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999). · cites it 18× “[¶ 6] The MTCA applies a policy of broad liability to governmental employees, subject to the exceptions enumerated in the immunity provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1). [3] See Leach v. Betters, 599 A.”
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018). · cites it 8× “" We have stated that the "bad faith" language does not apply to negate the absolute immunities of 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(A)-(D). Grossman v. Richards , 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 9, 722 A.”
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003). · cites it 8× “2443, which was enacted as 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111, states as follows: [I]t bears emphasis that the immunities contained in Title 14, section 8111 are intended to serve important governmental purposes.”
Morgan v. Kooistra, 2008 ME 26 (Me. 2008). · cites it 5× “Kooistra and Walsh argue that: (1) they each are entitled to discretionary function immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (the MTCA), 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C) (2007); (2) they each qualify for intentional act immunity pursuant to the MTCA, 14 M.”
Gove v. Carter, 2001 ME 126 (Me. 2001). · cites it 10× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111 (1)(C) (1980). Before the amendments, the statute stated, in relevant part: Employees of governmental entities shall be personally immune from civil liability for the following: C.”
Grossman v. Richards, 1998 ME 9 (Me. 1999). · cites it 8× “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1 )(E) (1980 & Supp.1998) (emphasis added).”
Hilderbrand v. Washington Cnty. Commissioners, 33 A.3d 425 (Me. 2011). · cites it 8× “[¶ 12] Discretionary function immunity may protect an employee, even when the employee’s actions are not specifically authorized by statute or regulation, as long as the employee’s actions were “reasonably encompassed by [his] duties.”
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “There, we reviewed whether a decision of a town clerk to replace a handrail on a stairway to her home, when the home also served as the town office, was protected by the employee discretionary function immunity provisions of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C)…”
Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121 (Me. 2016). · cites it 4× “The exceptions to tort claims liability for government employees are enumerated in 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1), which provides, inter alia, that “employees of governmental entities shall be absolutely immune from personal civil liability for .”
Lawson v. Willis, 204 A.3d 133 (Me. 2019). · cites it 5× “[¶8] Title 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1) of the Maine Tort Claims Act grants immunity from liability to governmental employees who are performing discretionary functions: Notwithstanding any liability that may have existed at common law, employees of governmental entities shall be…”
Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 922 A.2d 484 (Me. 2007). · cites it 4× “Bell’s Entitlement to Immunity [¶ 18] Bell contends that, on the undisputed facts, she is entitled to discretionary function immunity, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C), because her decision not to replace the handrail was a discretionary decision in furtherance of her role as the town…”
Polley v. Atwell, 581 A.2d 410 (Me. 1990). · cites it 5× “1 Atwell filed a motion for a summary judgment, claiming her entitlement to discretionary function immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act and specifically under 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1)(C). 2 In opposing the motion, the Polleys contended that Atwell deliberately withheld…”
Show all 120 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1) — 35 cases
Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999). “[¶ 6] The MTCA applies a policy of broad liability to governmental employees, subject to the exceptions enumerated in the immunity provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1). [3] See Leach v. Betters, 599 A.”
Gove v. Carter, 2001 ME 126 (Me. 2001). “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111 (1)(C) (1980). Before the amendments, the statute stated, in relevant part: Employees of governmental entities shall be personally immune from civil liability for the following: C.”
Moore v. City of Lewiston, 596 A.2d 612 (Me. 1991).
Grossman v. Richards, 1998 ME 9 (Me. 1999). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1 )(E) (1980 & Supp.1998) (emphasis added).”
Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep't, 2009 ME 57 (Me. 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(A) — 4 cases
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018). “" We have stated that the "bad faith" language does not apply to negate the absolute immunities of 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(A)-(D). Grossman v. Richards , 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 9, 722 A.”
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018).
Guimond v. City of Eastport (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Starbird v. Town of Minot (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(B) — 3 cases
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018). “" We have stated that the "bad faith" language does not apply to negate the absolute immunities of 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(A)-(D). Grossman v. Richards , 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 9, 722 A.”
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018).
Wilson (D. Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(C) — 77 cases
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003). “2443, which was enacted as 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111, states as follows: [I]t bears emphasis that the immunities contained in Title 14, section 8111 are intended to serve important governmental purposes.”
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008). “There, we reviewed whether a decision of a town clerk to replace a handrail on a stairway to her home, when the home also served as the town office, was protected by the employee discretionary function immunity provisions of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C)…”
Carroll v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 131 (Me. 1999). “[¶ 6] The MTCA applies a policy of broad liability to governmental employees, subject to the exceptions enumerated in the immunity provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1). [3] See Leach v. Betters, 599 A.”
Morgan v. Kooistra, 2008 ME 26 (Me. 2008). “Kooistra and Walsh argue that: (1) they each are entitled to discretionary function immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (the MTCA), 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C) (2007); (2) they each qualify for intentional act immunity pursuant to the MTCA, 14 M.”
Polley v. Atwell, 581 A.2d 410 (Me. 1990). “1 Atwell filed a motion for a summary judgment, claiming her entitlement to discretionary function immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act and specifically under 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1)(C). 2 In opposing the motion, the Polleys contended that Atwell deliberately withheld…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(D) — 2 cases
Palm v. Maine, 532 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Me. 2008).
Doyle v. Maksymowicz (D. Me. 2023).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(E) — 17 cases
Morgan v. Kooistra, 2008 ME 26 (Me. 2008). “Kooistra and Walsh argue that: (1) they each are entitled to discretionary function immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (the MTCA), 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C) (2007); (2) they each qualify for intentional act immunity pursuant to the MTCA, 14 M.”
Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 922 A.2d 484 (Me. 2007). “Bell’s Entitlement to Immunity [¶ 18] Bell contends that, on the undisputed facts, she is entitled to discretionary function immunity, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C), because her decision not to replace the handrail was a discretionary decision in furtherance of her role as the town…”
Dawn M. Harlor v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 ME 161 (Me. 2016).
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018). “" We have stated that the "bad faith" language does not apply to negate the absolute immunities of 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(A)-(D). Grossman v. Richards , 1999 ME 9 , ¶ 9, 722 A.”
Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121 (Me. 2016). “The exceptions to tort claims liability for government employees are enumerated in 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1), which provides, inter alia, that “employees of governmental entities shall be absolutely immune from personal civil liability for .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1)(c) — 1 case
Lever v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 2004 ME 35 (Me. 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(1X0) — 2 cases
True v. Ladner, 513 A.2d 257 (Me. 1986).
Leach v. Betters, 599 A.2d 424 (Me. 1991).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(C) — 4 cases
Berard v. McKinnis, 1997 ME 186 (Me. 1997).
Est. of Hampton v. Androscoggin Cnty., 245 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Me. 2003).
Trafton v. Devlin, 43 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D. Me. 1999).
Charles v. Cote (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(E) — 1 case
Selby v. Cumberland Cnty., 2002 ME 80 (Me. 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8111(l)(c) — 1 case
Higgins v. Penobscot Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 446 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2006).
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.