Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 28 (2026)

Waiver of common-law right of action unless claimed

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 746, §9 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 502, §A149 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 544, §12 (RP). PL 1991, c. 544, §14 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1969–1995 · leading case: Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994). · cites it 6× “It must be established that the injury or death of an employee (1) was incurred in the course of employment and (2) arose out of that employment.”
Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 542 A.2d 363 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “1987), and that Knox’s action was thereby barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision, 39 M.R.S.A. § 28. 3 Combined specifically argued that Knox’s alleged injuries were compensable under the criteria in 39 M.”
Philbrook v. Gates Formed-Fibre Prods., Inc., 536 A.2d 1118 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “In its Opinion and Order the court further found that, by its contract with Manpower, Gates had secured the payment of compensation within the meaning of the Act.”
Poche v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 339 So. 2d 1212 (La. 1976). “§ 23:1032 (West 1976); Me.Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 28 (1973); Mass.”
Gagne v. Carl Bauer Schraubenfabrick, GmbH, 595 F. Supp. 1081 (D. Me. 1984). “39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1978). 5 . Under Maine law, each concurrent tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages.”
Sirois v. Winslow, 585 A.2d 183 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 ("An employee ... shall be held to have waived his right of action at common law .”
Fanion v. McNeal, 577 A.2d 2 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (Supp.1989). We have noted on several occasions that "the law of workers' compensation is uniquely statutory.”
McKellar v. Clark Equip. Co., 472 A.2d 411 (Me. 1984). “2 (emphasis added) The exclusivity section, 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1978), secures the employer’s immunity with respect to the employee by providing that: An employee of an employer, who shall have secured the payment of compensation as provided in sections 21 to 27 shall be held to…”
Perry v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 481 A.2d 133 (Me. 1984). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1978); Gibson v. National Ben Franklin Insurance Co.”
Bourette v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 481 A.2d 170 (Me. 1984). “Defendant argues that the Superior Court erred in holding that Bourette and Landry were not employees of defendant and therefore barred from common law action by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1978). In addition, defendant assigns…”
Beverage v. Cumberland Farms N., Inc., 502 A.2d 486 (Me. 1985). “39 M.R.S.A. § 28 (1978) (emphasis added).”
Roberts v. Am. Chain & Cable Co., 259 A.2d 43 (Me. 1969). “In return for the employer’s acceptance of liability without fault in industrial injuries under the State’s regulatory program made an integral part of the employer-employee relationship between an assenting employer and a non-dissenting employee, the employee’s right of action…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.