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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 3 (2026)

Common-law defenses lost

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 480, §3 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 663, §242 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).
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 6 cases, 1967–1987 · leading case: Comeau v. Maine Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362 (Me. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comeau v. Maine Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362 (Me. 1982). “See 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 3, 61; Geel v. Graham Brothers, Me.”
Wilson v. Gordon, 354 A.2d 398 (Me. 1976). “This question is of little concern, however, because the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. § 3, expressly abolish the defense of assumption of the risk.”
Page v. Gen. Elec. Co., 391 A.2d 303 (Me. 1978). “§ 1051(3)) in addition to giving the State a right of action to collect unpaid assessments, while failure to insure against industrial accident is not subject to such strictures but does deprive the employer of the right to assert certain civil defenses in an action against him…”
Brubach v. Almy, 520 A.2d 334 (Me. 1987). “Brubach argues that under the applicable provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act prevailing at the time of the accident that Almy, who had not secured workers’ compensation insurance coverage, was precluded from asserting the common law defenses of contributory negligence…”
Geel v. Graham Bros., 430 A.2d 1112 (Me. 1981). “With exceptions not here applicable, 39 M.R.S.A. § 3 provides that the employee’s negligence or assumption of the risk is not a defense to the employer in the employee’s action to recover compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment.”
Dionne v. Blier, 226 A.2d 527 (Me. 1967). “First: Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (39 M.R.S.A. § 3) denying defenses of contributory negligence of the employee, negligence of a fellow employee, and assumption of risk, was not applicable to “employees engaged in domestic service or in agriculture” by Section 4…”
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.