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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 202 (2026)

Injury or death due to willful intention or intoxication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Compensation or other benefits are not allowed for the injury or death of an employee when it is proved that the injury or death was occasioned by the employee's willful intention to bring about the injury or death of the employee or of another, or that the injury or death resulted from the employee's intoxication while on duty. This provision as to intoxication does not apply if the employer knew at the time of the injury that the employee was intoxicated or that the employee was in the habit at that time of becoming intoxicated while on duty.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). 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 2 cases, 2000–2004 · leading case: Lydon v. Sprinkler Servs., 841 A.2d 793 (Me. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lydon v. Sprinkler Servs., 841 A.2d 793 (Me. 2004). “” 39-A M.R.S.A. § 202 (2001) (emphasis added).”
Husvar v. Engineered Prods., Inc., 755 A.2d 498 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “The Board also rejected Engineered’s reliance on the intoxication defense, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 202 (Supp.1999), concluding that while Husvar may have been intoxicated, he was not on duty and that, moreover, no evidence suggests that the injury “resulted from” his intoxication.”
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.