Personal Injury

September 10, 2022

Comparative Fault in Maine Personal Injury Cases

If you’re in an accident in Maine, whether a car accident or a slip-and-fall, you may be wondering if you’ll be saddled with the expenses required to treat your injuries, restore your property, and compensate your time away from work. Maybe you contributed in some small way to your accident, such as speeding slightly or not carefully inspecting the walkway, and you’re worried you may not be able to recover any costs at all.

To recover damages in a personal injury case, you must establish the negligence of the person you are trying to recover from. This means this person owed you a duty of care and breached that duty in a way that caused your injury, which basically establishes fault. Different states use different negligence systems that can create a confusing legal environment for personal injury litigants. Some states say that victims cannot recover any damages at all if they were at fault even in a small way in an accident. Others allow for recovery, but damages will be reduced by the percentage a jury finds you to be at fault. Others allow recovery if you are found either equally at fault or less than equally at fault. In Maine, if you are 49% or less at fault, you are allowed to recover damages in a personal injury case. This is called a modified comparative negligence system.

Modified Comparative Negligence in Maine

As stated above, Maine’s negligence rule means that you will recover as long as a jury determines you were less than 49% at fault in the accident—meaning you cannot recover if you are “equally at fault.” If you are less than 49% at fault but more than 0% at fault, your recoveries will be reduced to the extent the jury finds is “just and equitable” considering your actions and share of responsibility.

October 28, 2020

Maximizing a Maine Accident Victim’s Recovery when Restitution is Insufficient

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Under Maine law, an individual who suffers injuries because of another’s negligence or reckless conduct may hold at-fault parties or entities responsible for their damages. In some cases, the other party may be responsible under both civil and criminal statutes. Generally, tort or civil claims involve situations where one or more parties’ negligence directly or proximately causes personal damages to another person. Whereas criminal conduct involves a wrong committed against society, in general. The difference between this conduct generally involves the method of wrongdoing, the actor’s intent, and the effect on society. However, in some cases, a tort activity may involve criminal conduct. In either case, a victim may be entitled to damages through civil awards or court-ordered restitution.

Court-ordered restitution is “monetary reimbursement ordered at the offender’s sentencing.” This reimbursement may include a combination of monetary compensation or services by an offender to the victim of a crime and the economic loss caused by the crime. Under the law, criminal courts cannot impose restitution for pain and suffering. In cases where restitution is a condition of an offender’s probation, a probation officer will monitor compliance. Also, the Maine Crime Victims’ Compensation Program may provide additional compensation for a victim’s expenses.

Victims must understand that criminal restitution does not negate their right to civil damages. Court-ordered restitution and civil damages serve different purposes. Victims who seek compensation through the civil system do not need to establish that the victim was guilty through the criminal system. Restitution is designed to rehabilitate the offender and deter future criminal behavior. In contrast, a civil judgment is aimed at compensating the plaintiff for their losses. Although civil plaintiffs can recover through restitution, this does not always cover the extent of the victims’ losses.

April 20, 2020

Important Laws Pertaining to Maine Personal Injury Cases

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Individuals who suffer injuries because of another person or entities’ negligence may be able to recover for their damages from the negligent party. Under Maine’s personal injury laws, victims who wish to recover damages must be sure to adhere to the state’s strict procedural and evidentiary rules. Injury victims should consult and retain an experienced Maine injury victim to ensure that their rights and remedies are appropriately addressed.

Maine’s “statute of limitations” provides Maine injury victims with a strict amount of time that they have to file a personal injury lawsuit against the culpable party. In Maine, personal injury plaintiffs must file their lawsuits within six years of when the incident giving rise to the claim occurred. Relative to other states, Maine provides victims with a longer time frame to file their lawsuit; however, plaintiffs still risk dismissal if they fail to abide by the time period. Additionally, there are stricter and shorter deadlines when the claim is against a governmental entity such as a city or county. In those cases, plaintiffs must meet additional notice requirements, and they only have two years to file their claims.

Another critical concept that injury victims must understand is Maine’s comparative fault rule. Maine follows the modified comparative fault rule to resolve cases where the plaintiff is partially responsible for causing their own injuries and damages. Under the law, an injury victim’s damages will be reduced relative to their percentage of fault, as long as they are less than 50% responsible. If the injury victim is more than 50% responsible, courts will bar their claim, and they cannot collect any damages from the other party. The law requires Maine courts to apply the rule whenever the two parties share fault; however, the rule is also relevant during insurance settlement negotiations.

July 24, 2019

Can an Injury Victim Who Is Partially at Fault Still Recover Through a Maine Personal Injury Lawsuit?

by Peter Thompson & Associates

While some accidents are solely the cause of one party, it is not unusual for multiple parties to share responsibility for an accident. One of the most common questions Maine personal injury victims have is whether they can pursue a claim for compensation if they were partially at fault for the accident resulting in their injuries. The answer, as is often the case with legal questions of this nature, is “it depends.”

Maine courts employ the doctrine of modified comparative negligence when it comes to determining which injury victims can recover for their injuries. In many jurisdictions using a comparative negligence system, a partially at-fault plaintiff can recover for their injuries; however, a plaintiffs’ recovery amount will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Thus, if a plaintiff suffered $400,000 in personal injury damages but was found to be 25 percent at fault by the jury, the plaintiff’s total recovery amount would be $300,000.

Under Maine Rules of Civil Procedure section 156, as long as the injury victim is less than 50% percent at fault for the accident, they are legally permitted to recover for their injuries. However, unlike other jurisdictions, Maine courts “instruct the jury to reduce the total damages by dollars and cents, and not by percentage, to the extent considered just and equitable.” In so doing, juries should consider the plaintiff’s share of responsibility, but should not strictly rely on percentages when reducing a plaintiff’s award figure. In addition, the court must instruct the jury that their award amount will be the final verdict in the case and that there will be no further modification by the court.

July 18, 2019

Court Discusses Maine’s Equine Immunity Statute in Recent Personal Injury Case

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Maine personal injury case discussing the state’s equine statute. Specifically, the court had to determine if the equine statute precluded the plaintiff’s case against the parents of a ten-year-old girl who struck the plaintiff while riding a horse. As the court notes, this case was the first time the Maine Supreme Court heard a case requiring the court to determine the breadth of immunity provided by the equine-immunity statute.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was observing children race horses at an arena. While there was a designated area for spectators, the plaintiff observed from an area that was closer to the exit. The plaintiff watched as a ten-year-old girl rode around the track several times. However, on the girl’s fourth circuit around the raceway, the girl’s horse collided with the plaintiff. The plaintiff fell, seriously injuring her wrist, and later filed a personal injury lawsuit against the girl’s parents (the defendants).

In response to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendants claimed Title 7 Chapter 743 Section 4103-A of the Maine Revised Statutes provides the defendant’s immunity from the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Specifically, that statute provides that any “person engaged in an equine activity is not liable for any property damage or damages arising from the personal injury or death of a participant or spectator resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities.”

June 19, 2019

Nursing Home Neglect and Abuse of Veterans at Veterans Administration Facilities in 25 States

by Peter Thompson & Associates

A new federal inspection report shows nursing home neglect and abuse has been pervasive at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities across the country, including Augusta, Maine. Residents have been denied medication, trapped in wheelchairs for hours and have sustained wounds rivaling those they suffered in combat. Inspectors reported spotting nurses sleeping on-the-job, and other nurses unable to respond to distress calls because patients had no functional call light.

An estimated 40,000 veterans are residents at VA nursing homes throughout the country at any given time. A joint report by USA Today and the Boston Globe revealed that in a VA nursing home in Maine’s capital, veterans, without enough medication, spent hours clearly in pain .

The reporting team first revealed that private contractor inspectors investigated the VA system nine months ago, but until recently their actual reports weren’t made public. The reports painted a picture of abysmal care of aging and vulnerable veterans and revealed that of 99 VA nursing homes inspected, 55 were cited for care deficiencies that resulted in actual harm to veterans. In three of those cases, inspectors discovered that the health and safety of veterans was in immediate jeopardy. Continue reading

March 8, 2019

Maine Dog Bite Attack Leads to Stronger State Law

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Dog bites in Maine can have serious consequences for victims, resulting in lifelong injuries, scarring and emotional trauma. Last summer, effective Aug. 1, 2018, Maine’s law pertaining to dangerous dogs changed, making it easier to hold negligent dog owners accountable. As our Portland dog bite injury attorneys can explain, L.D. 858, codified in MRSA s. 3907, sub s.12-D, raised the fine and expanded penalties imposed for owning a nuisance or dangerous dog and also for failing to follow a court order related to that dog.

The law defines a “dangerous dog” as a canine (wolf hybrid or dog) that either kills or inflicts serious bodily injury on a person, pet or other domesticated animal (assuming the subject of the attack wasn’t trespassing on the dog’s or its owner/owner’s property). But a dog doesn’t need to bite in order for this designation to apply. A dog can be found dangerous if it causes a “reasonable and prudent person,” who is not on the dog/owner’s property and isn’t acting in any way aggressive, to fear imminent serious bodily injury of themselves or someone else. Excluded in this are law enforcement K-9s, dogs protecting their owners/property or dogs that seriously injure or kill a person committing a crime against an individual or property owned by the dog’s keeper/owner.

Nuisance dogs, meanwhile, are defined as a dog/wolf hybrid that causes bodily injury (other than serious bodily injury) to an individual or domesticated animal not trespassing on the dog or the owner/keeper. Just like Maine’s new dangerous dog designation, a dog that puts a person in fear of bodily injury can be given a nuisance designation.

November 2, 2018

Torts in Sports: Maine Injury Liability for Youth Sports Assaults

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Learning good sportsmanship is one of the primary purposes of youth sports. Yet all over the country – and right here in Maine – serious injuries are reported when parents, players, coaches and fans engage in violence both on and off the field.

Our Portland injury lawyers just recently read about a girls soccer field punch during a playoff game at Lisbon High School, a half hour outside Portland. A video clip (viewed more than 73,000 times on social media before it was removed) shows one player swinging at an opposing player after a scored goal. Later in the game, the clip shows that same player attack again, punching the same girl in the face. The victim fell as she tried to dodge the punch and apparently wasn’t seriously hurt, according to the Portland Press Herald. The video is being reviewed by school officials and no criminal charges have been filed. Less than a week later, the Press Herald reported yet another violent attack at a youth sports game, this time at Scarborough High School, where a 20-year-old resident allegedly stabbed a 15-year-old student in the parking lot during a soccer game half-time.

As Maine injury lawyers know, there may be few remedies available for youth sports players who suffer certain injuries in the course of the game. Depending on the nature of the sport, those injuries may be considered the inherent risk one assumes in playing. (Not always, though, so it’s best to at least discuss your rights with an attorney.) However, when an assault or battery occurs at a sporting event, either among fans or between players or even parents, coaches or referees, parties may be found liable under either negligence or intentional tort law. Continue reading

October 4, 2018

Maine Injury Lawsuit Against Farm After Drug Overdose at Work

by Peter Thompson & Associates

A worker who suffered a drug overdose on the job is suing his former employer, alleging his co-workers committed gross negligence by failing to call 911 and instead placing him in a cold shower. Bangor Daily News reports the 30-year-old man is now confined to a wheelchair and unable to care for himself.

The case is unique in the fact that in most Maine work injury cases seeking coverage of medical bills and lost wages from an employer, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy, as explained in the general provisions of 39-A M.R.S.A. §104. The law says an employer is exempt from civil action for either negligence or intentional conduct resulting in an employee’s injury or death, and also that a fellow employee is exempt from a Maine injury lawsuit arising out of the course of employment.

As a no-fault system, the employee is not required to prove negligence and the employer loses the right to assert most common-law defenses that would ordinarily address an injury lawsuit. The worker does need to show he or she was acting in the course and scope of employment. Although employees can (and should, if available) assert third-party liability claims against non-employer defendants whose negligence caused or contributed to their injuries, it’s very rare for an employee to succeed in a negligence lawsuit against an employer for injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment. This doesn’t apply to independent contractor workers, only those who meet the definition of “employee.” Continue reading

August 9, 2018

Maine School Injury Case Results in Partial Summary Judgment

by Peter Thompson & Associates

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently granted partial summary judgment in a case against a Portland High School after a mother alleged her teenage son fell and struck his head while apparently tussling with an older boy at a school sporting event.The court dismissed the claims against the older boy’s parents. The case against the defendant teen and the school district will proceed separately from this ruling.

The mother claimed the incident occurred at Cheverus High School in Portland, where a number of youths had been attending a sporting event. She filed an injury lawsuit against the school district, as well as the older boy and his parents, bringing counts for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant parents requested summary judgment for both negligent infliction of emotional distress and causes of action under state negligence laws.

Summary judgment is a legal term that means a plaintiff has failed to bring a case in which there is a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide, so the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Essentially, this means a plaintiff failed to bring a case sufficient for a jury to decide upon matters of fact, and the defendant otherwise prevails as a matter of law. Summary judgments are frequently filed by law firms defending corporations and large insurance companies. It means an unprepared injury attorney could find his case over shortly after making it to the courtroom.