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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 4 (2026)

Applicability to certain actions and employers; exemptions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1965, c. 411, §1 (AMD). PL 1965, c. 489, §1 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 459, §1 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 576, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 746, §4 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §4 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 493 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 663, §243 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 70, §2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 249, §2 (RPR). PL 1985, c. 737, §A117 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 682, §4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 544, §11 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 544, §14 (AFF). 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 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · 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 12× “The court concluded that the immunity and exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act in effect at the time of Roy's death, 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 4, 28 (1989), barred the action.”
LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff contends that the immunity afforded by 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (1989) to a participating employer, its employees, supervisors, officers, and directors does not extend to defendant in his capacity as landlord.”
McKellar v. Clark Equip. Co., 472 A.2d 411 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “The immunity provision, 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (Supp.1982-83), states in relevant part: Such employers shall be exempt from civil actions because of such injuries either at common law or under sections 141 to 148, under Title 14, sections 8101 to 8118 or under Title 18-A, section 2-804.”
Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Sullivan & Merritt, Inc., 493 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “Assenting employers are “exempt from civil actions because of such injuries_” 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (Pamph.1984-1985). Moreover, an employee who receives compensation “shall be held to have waived his right of action at common law to recover damages for the injuries sustained by him_”…”
Beverage v. Cumberland Farms N., Inc., 502 A.2d 486 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “In this tort action brought in the Superior Court (Cumberland County) against her employer for a work-related injury, the plaintiff employee attempts to avoid the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 4, 28, by framing her complaint in terms of…”
Cole v. Chandler, 2000 ME 104 (Me. 2000). “The applicable sections in Beverage were 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 4, 28, which have been repealed and replaced by 39-A M.”
City of Haverhill v. George Brox, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 138 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “Maine law prohibits enforcement of an indemnity agreement against an employer with workers’ compensation insurance unless the agreement contains a clear and express waiver of the immunity provided by the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 39, § 4 (West…”
Roberts v. Am. Chain & Cable Co., 259 A.2d 43 (Me. 1969). · cites it 2× “The issue raised in the instant report results from Doggett’s affirmative defense of immunity under the workmen’s compensation act to American Chain’s third-party complaint, the employer specifically pointing to 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 in support of its claim that as an assenting…”
Hurd v. Hurd, 423 A.2d 960 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “[3] Under the law prevailing in 1971, when plaintiff was injured, claims by employees against their employers for injuries occurring in the course of employment were, as they are at present, ordinarily subject to workers' compensation. See 39 M.R.S.A. § 51 (Supp.1972). In this…”
Gibson v. Nat'l Ben Franklin Ins., 387 A.2d 220 (Me. 1978). “See 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 4, 28. From subsection (6) of 39 M.”
Hatch v. Lido Co. of New England, 609 A.2d 1155 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “involving personal injuries sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employ-ment_” 39 M.”
Wilson v. Gordon, 354 A.2d 398 (Me. 1976). “Only a small group of employer-employee cases are excluded from the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (39 M.R.S.A. § 4). 5 . The definition of fault used in our comparative negligence statute is: “Fault means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or…”
Show all 34 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.