Maine follows modified comparative fault under § 156: a plaintiff may recover only if their negligence is less than that of the defendant(s). At equal or greater fault, recovery is barred; otherwise damages are reduced proportionally. That is what separates Maine being sued after a car accident from a generic national summary. Read 14 M.R.S. § 156 before the background sections below. The personal-injury deadline is 6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752. Maine is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; tort claims against negligent drivers are not limited by a no-fault immunity rule.
Comparative fault and negligence in Maine
Maine follows modified comparative fault under § 156: a plaintiff may recover only if their negligence is less than that of the defendant(s). At equal or greater fault, recovery is barred; otherwise damages are reduced proportionally.
In Maine, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Maine allocation rules.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Maine is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; tort claims against negligent drivers are not limited by a no-fault immunity rule.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Maine uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
A concrete Maine scenario
Here is one way the Maine pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
Two drivers collide in Maine. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Maine, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Maine follows modified comparative fault under § 156: a plaintiff may recover only if their negligence is less than that of the defendant(s). At equal or greater fault, recovery is barred; otherwise damages are reduced proportionally.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Maine is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; tort claims against negligent drivers are not limited by a no-fault immunity rule.
In Maine the accident lawsuit turns on 14 M.R.S. § 156 and the modified 50 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
What to do after a crash in Maine
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Maine) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Maine
Clifford WING, Jr. v. Bernard L. MORSE
Clifford WING, Jr. v. Bernard L. MORSE, 1973 Me. LEXIS 262 (1973)
…nd facts. In 1965 our Legislature adopted what it called a "comparative negligence” statute, now 14 M.R.S.A. 156. As originally enacted (P.L. 1965, c. 424), it read as follows: “Where any person suffers death or damage as a result of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that death or damage shall not be defeated by reason o…
Clifford WING, Jr. v. Bernard L. MORSE is worth reading on Maine car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "In 1965 our Legislature adopted what it called a 'comparative negligence” statute, now 14 M.R.S.A. 156. As originally enacted (P.L. 1965, c." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Antoinette WALTER v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Antoinette WALTER v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., 2000 Me. LEXIS 66 (2000)
…ve submitted the issues of negligence, proximate cause, and comparative negligence to the jury. Walter contends that Wal-Mart judicially admitted liability in its opening statement to the jury. The clear import of Wal-Mart’s opening statement was that liability was not an issue, and the only question that the jury would have to decide was the amount of damages.1 *967[¶ 12] Stat…
Antoinette WALTER v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. is worth reading on Maine car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Walter contends that Wal-Mart judicially admitted liability in its opening statement to the jury. The clear import of Wal-Mart’s opening statement was that liability was not an issue, and the only question that the jury would have to decide was the amount of damages." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Raymond E. WILSON v. Peter GORDON and Peter Gordon, D/B/A Gordon’s Oil Service
…has not become inapplicable by legislative enactment of the comparative negligence law.” He also alleges the verdict of the jury is “contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” Appellant concedes that as a general rule an employer has a duty to warn his employees of dangerous working conditions, but he urges that the rule is not absolute. No duty arises, he says, where the d…
Maine opinions such as Raymond E. WILSON v. Peter GORDON and Peter Gordon, D/B/A Gordon’s Oil Service are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "He also alleges the verdict of the jury is “contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” Appellant concedes that as a general rule an employer has a duty to warn his employees of dangerous working conditions, but he urges that the rule is not absolute." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jeannine PELLETIER Et Al. v. FORT KENT GOLF CLUB
Jeannine PELLETIER Et Al. v. FORT KENT GOLF CLUB, 1995 Me. LEXIS 150 (1995)
…present case. We disagree. The Legislature first enacted a comparative negligence statute in 1965. P.L.1965, ch. 424. 2 That statute was modeled after an *223 English statute passed in the Law Reform Act of 1945. See Wing v. Morse, 300 A.2d 491, 497 (Me.1973); 2 Legis.Rec. 2589 (1965) (statement of Rep. Berman). In 1969, by P.L.1969, ch. 399, § 1, the Legislature amended the c…
Practitioners open Jeannine PELLETIER Et Al. v. FORT KENT GOLF CLUB when Maine car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We disagree. The Legislature first enacted a comparative negligence statute in 1965. P.L.1965, ch. 424. 2 That statute was modeled after an *223 English statute passed in the Law Reform Act of 1945. See Wing v. Morse, 300 A.2d 491, 497 (Me.1973); 2 Legis.Rec." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Margaret AUSTIN v. RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC.
Margaret AUSTIN v. RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC., 1984 Me. LEXIS 594 (1984)
…o our court the following question of Maine law: Is Maine’s comparative negligence statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 [1980], applicable to plaintiff’s claim in this action based on 14 M.R.S.A. § 221 [1980]? Our answer is yes, but in only the limited way described in this opinion. I. Factual and Statutory Background The certified question has arisen in the course of a federal suit pros…
Margaret AUSTIN v. RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. is worth reading on Maine car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Maine law: Is Maine’s comparative negligence statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 [1980], applicable to plaintiff’s claim in this action based on 14 M.R.S.A. § 221 [1980]?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Claire BROWN v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
Claire BROWN v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, 2008 Me. LEXIS 189 (2008)
…ing that the court erred in adjusting her damages award for comparative negligence. [¶ 2] Pursuant to M.R.App. P. 25, the First Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions of state law for our review: 1. Does Maine law incorporate the rule of Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 10 that a manufacturer has a duty to warn known but indirect purchasers…
Claire BROWN v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION is worth reading on Maine car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Pursuant to M.R.App. P. 25, the First Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions of state law for our review: 1." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Doris JACKSON and Percy Jackson v. FREDERICK’S MOTOR INN v. SARAH COVENTRY, INC.
…or the damage, all pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 (the Maine Comparative Negligence Act). At the close of the evi *171 dence, the presiding Justice ordered directed verdicts in favor of the third party defendant, Sarah Coventry, Inc., and in favor of Frederick’s as to the plaintiff husband, Percy Jackson. Judgment was entered against Frederick’s on May 17, 1979. On May 23, 1979…
Maine opinions such as Doris JACKSON and Percy Jackson v. FREDERICK’S MOTOR INN v. SARAH COVENTRY, INC. are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "M.R.S.A. § 156 (the Maine Comparative Negligence Act). At the close of the evi *171 dence, the presiding Justice ordered directed verdicts in favor of the third party defendant, Sarah Coventry, Inc., and in favor of Frederick’s as to the plaintiff husband, Percy Jackson." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 50% bar (recovery barred at 50% or more fault).
- Controlling authority: 14 M.R.S. § 156.
- In Maine, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752.
- Insurance: Maine is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; tort claims against negligent drivers are not limited by a no-fault immunity rule.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Maine?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under 14 M.R.S. § 156.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Maine’s modified 50 rules under 14 M.R.S. § 156.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Maine, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Maine?
6 years — 14 M.R.S. § 752
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Maine is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; tort claims against negligent drivers are not limited by a no-fault immunity rule. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.