Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8113 (2026)

Liability not expanded, other remedies are exclusive

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Liability not expanded unless chapter expressly provides. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this chapter shall enlarge or otherwise adversely affect the liability of an employee or a governmental entity. Any immunity or other bar to a civil lawsuit under Maine or federal law shall, where applicable, remain in effect.

[PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

2. Effect of other statutes concerning immunity. When any other statute expressly provides a waiver of governmental, sovereign or official immunity, the provisions of that statute shall be the exclusive method for any recovery of funds in any fact situation to which that statute applies.

[PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 591, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “However, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2) 3 makes any statutory waiver of immunity outside the act the exclusive method of recovery in fact situations to which such other statute applies.”

Martel v. Inhabitants of Town of Old Orchard, 404 A.2d 994 (Me. 1979). · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2) (Supp.1978) [3] states that where a statute outside the Maine Tort Claims Act provides a waiver of immunity, that statute shall be the exclusive method for recovery of funds in any "fact situation" to which it applies.”

Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417 (Me. 1987). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2). We have previously noted that a waiver of governmental immunity is not to be implied, Drake v.”

Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). “In addition, the Town relies on the language of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(1), enacted as part of the Maine Tort Claims Act, which specifically preserves “any immunity or bar to a civil lawsuit under Maine or federal law.”

Harris v. City of Old Town, 667 A.2d 611 (Me. 1995). “Because Harris’s claims against Old Town are based solely on the alleged existence of a passive highway defect and are governed by the provisions of 23 M.”

Dickinson v. Town of Houlton, 669 A.2d 176 (Me. 1995). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8113 (1980). When interpreting a statute, we should preserve the meaning of all of its constituent parts.”

Bernard v. Town of N. Berwick (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Specifically, the Highway Defect Act provides that “[t]rees, structures and other things which exist in accordance with municipal ordinances are not defects in a public way.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8113(1) — 1 case

Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). “In addition, the Town relies on the language of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(1), enacted as part of the Maine Tort Claims Act, which specifically preserves “any immunity or bar to a civil lawsuit under Maine or federal law.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8113(2) — 5 cases

Clockedile v. State Dep't of Transp., 437 A.2d 187 (Me. 1981). “However, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2) 3 makes any statutory waiver of immunity outside the act the exclusive method of recovery in fact situations to which such other statute applies.”

Martel v. Inhabitants of Town of Old Orchard, 404 A.2d 994 (Me. 1979). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2) (Supp.1978) [3] states that where a statute outside the Maine Tort Claims Act provides a waiver of immunity, that statute shall be the exclusive method for recovery of funds in any "fact situation" to which it applies.”

Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417 (Me. 1987). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8113(2). We have previously noted that a waiver of governmental immunity is not to be implied, Drake v.”

Harris v. City of Old Town, 667 A.2d 611 (Me. 1995). “Because Harris’s claims against Old Town are based solely on the alleged existence of a passive highway defect and are governed by the provisions of 23 M.”

Bernard v. Town of N. Berwick (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Specifically, the Highway Defect Act provides that “[t]rees, structures and other things which exist in accordance with municipal ordinances are not defects in a public way.”

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.