Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28-A, § 2512 (2026)

Named and retained; several liability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Named and retained. No action against a server may be maintained unless the minor, the intoxicated individual or the estate of the minor or intoxicated individual is named as a defendant in the action and is retained in the action until the litigation is concluded by trial or settlement.

[PL 1987, c. 45, Pt. A, §4 (NEW).]

2. Several but not joint liability. The intoxicated individual and any server, as described in section 2505, are each severally liable and not jointly liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages which corresponds to each defendant's percentage of fault as determined by the court or a jury.

[PL 1987, c. 45, Pt. A, §4 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 45, §A4 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50 (Me. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512. We find no constitutional violation.”

Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 2013 ME 37 (Me. 2013). “See also 28-A M.R.S. § 2512 (2012) (apportioning liability by explicitly creating several but not joint liability between intoxicated individuals and servers of alcoholic beverages).”

Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 618 A.2d 214 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “We agree that Jordan was not “retained in the action” as required by the plain language of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1) and affirm the judgment.”

Laureen Fama v. Bob's LLC, 2024 ME 73 (Me. 2024). · cites it 2× “5 Relying on Clarke’s exemption under section 104, Bob’s LLC argues that the liquor liability claims fail as a matter of law because under the MLLA, 28-A M.R.S. § 2512 (2024), in order to pursue claims against Bob’s LLC, Clarke must, but due to the exemption, cannot, be retained…”

Douglass v. Kenyon Oil Co., 618 A.2d 220 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “Because an intoxicated individual who settles with a plaintiff is not “retained in the action” as required by the named and retained provision of the Maine Liquor Liability Act (MLLA), 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1) (1988) 1 we remand to the Superior Court to enter summary judgment in…”

Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 766 F. Supp. 18 (D. Me. 1991). “28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1). The necessary consequence of denying Plaintiffs’ motion would be the dismissal of Counts III, IV, and V of the Complaint for failure to join an indispensable party.”

Leonard v. Schemengee's, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2012). “Without more, it is premature for this court to 4 Motion for Summary Judgment The overall basis for Schemengee' s motion for summary judgment is essentially that there is no "intoxicated individual" named and retained as a defendant for purposes of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1). The…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28-A, § 2512(1) — 4 cases

Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 618 A.2d 214 (Me. 1992). “We agree that Jordan was not “retained in the action” as required by the plain language of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1) and affirm the judgment.”

Douglass v. Kenyon Oil Co., 618 A.2d 220 (Me. 1992). “Because an intoxicated individual who settles with a plaintiff is not “retained in the action” as required by the named and retained provision of the Maine Liquor Liability Act (MLLA), 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1) (1988) 1 we remand to the Superior Court to enter summary judgment in…”

Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 766 F. Supp. 18 (D. Me. 1991). “28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1). The necessary consequence of denying Plaintiffs’ motion would be the dismissal of Counts III, IV, and V of the Complaint for failure to join an indispensable party.”

Leonard v. Schemengee's, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2012). “Without more, it is premature for this court to 4 Motion for Summary Judgment The overall basis for Schemengee' s motion for summary judgment is essentially that there is no "intoxicated individual" named and retained as a defendant for purposes of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512(1). The…”

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.