Maine Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability

To win a slip and fall claim in Maine, you must prove the property owner was negligent by showing the owner knew or should have known about the hazard, failed to fix or warn of it, and that failure caused your injury. Maine applies modified comparative negligence, which reduces or bars recovery depending on your share of fault.

Proving a slip and fall claim in Maine

Maine premises liability law requires a plaintiff to establish that the property owner or occupier owed a duty of care, that a dangerous condition existed on the premises, and that the owner either knew about the hazard or should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. This "notice" element is central: a defendant who had no actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard typically cannot be held liable.

Constructive notice arises when a condition exists long enough that a reasonably prudent owner exercising ordinary care would have discovered and corrected it. Courts look at how visible the hazard was, how long it had been present, and whether the owner had a reasonable inspection routine. If the dangerous condition was caused by the owner's own employees or by a pattern of prior incidents, a court may infer the owner had constructive notice more quickly.

The leading constructive-notice framework in Maine slip and fall cases flows from the general duty of reasonable care owed to invitees (people invited onto premises for business or commercial purposes). Social guests (licensees) are owed a somewhat lesser duty, generally requiring the owner to warn of known dangers that the guest is unlikely to discover. Trespassers, except children under certain circumstances, are owed only the duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury.

Causation must also be proved: the hazard must have actually caused your fall and resulting injuries. A property owner is not an insurer against all accidents on the property; you must link the specific defect to your specific harm.

The open-and-obvious doctrine in Maine

Maine does NOT apply a categorical open-and-obvious "no-duty" rule. The Maine Law Court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) in Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98 (Me. 1972), which states that a landowner owes no duty for obvious conditions only "unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness." The critical word is "unless."

That means where the owner has reason to foresee that a visitor might still be harmed by the obvious hazard, because the visitor's attention may be distracted, the visitor is required to use that path, or the benefit of encountering the risk outweighs the apparent danger, the owner's duty of reasonable care survives. See Williams v. Boise Cascade Corp., 507 A.2d 576 (Me. 1986); Baker v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 499 A.2d 464 (Me. 1985); Colvin v. A R Cable Services-ME, Inc., 1997 ME 163; Coffin v. Lariat Associates, 2001 ME 33.

Because open-and-obvious evidence bears on whether harm was foreseeable and on the plaintiff's own comparative fault, these questions are usually submitted to the jury rather than resolved on summary judgment. In practical terms, a visible hazard reduces your odds of winning (the jury may assign you more fault) but it does not automatically end the case.

Ice, snow, and natural accumulation in Maine

Maine takes a duty-to-exercise-ordinary-care approach to ice and snow and explicitly rejects two defenses that help property owners in other states: the "natural accumulation" shield and the "ongoing storm" doctrine.

Under Budzko v. One City Center Associates, 2001 ME 37, 767 A.2d 310, the Law Court held that a commercial possessor who expects significant numbers of invitees must take reasonable steps to keep the premises safe even while a storm is actively ongoing. The mere fact that ice or snow accumulated naturally, rather than through a human act, does not insulate the owner from liability.

To prevail on an ice-or-snow fall claim, a plaintiff must still establish all three notice elements: (1) an accumulation of snow or ice that proximately caused the fall; (2) that the accumulation existed long enough for a reasonably prudent owner to have discovered and remedied or warned of it; and (3) that the defendant knew of the condition and failed to correct it within a reasonable time. These are jury questions in most cases.

Property owners in Maine are well advised to document their snow-removal and salting schedules, because that documentation will be central to any dispute about the "reasonable time" element.

How fault is shared: Maine's negligence rule

Maine follows modified comparative negligence under 14 M.R.S. § 156. Under this system, a plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to their own share of fault. A plaintiff who is 25% at fault in a $100,000 case receives $75,000.

The critical threshold is 50%. If a jury finds the plaintiff equally at fault or more than equally at fault (50% or above), recovery is completely barred. This makes Maine a modified-50 (barred at 50%+) state, distinct from pure comparative fault states (like California) that allow partial recovery even at 99% fault.

Maine has a notable procedural quirk: the statute directs the jury to reduce total damages "by dollars and cents, and not by percentage" to the extent the jury thinks just and equitable, rather than through a mechanical percentage calculation. This gives Maine juries somewhat more flexibility than a strict percentage model, but the outcome should be functionally similar in most cases.

Where multiple defendants are responsible, Maine retains joint and several liability. Each defendant is liable for the full judgment, not merely their proportionate share, though special verdict forms allow the jury to allocate percentages among defendants.

Deadlines: statute of limitations and government claims

Maine's statute of limitations for personal injury claims is 6 years from the date the cause of action accrues, under 14 M.R.S. § 752. This is one of the longest PI deadlines in the United States; most states set their SOL at 2 or 3 years. The 6-year period typically begins running on the date of the fall itself, though the "discovery rule" may delay accrual in limited circumstances where the injury was not immediately apparent.

Be aware of important carve-outs. Medical malpractice and professional negligence against health-care providers carries a 3-year period (24 M.R.S. § 2902). Wrongful death actions must be filed within 2 years (18-C M.R.S. § 2-807). These shorter deadlines do not typically apply to ordinary slip and fall claims, but they are relevant if you suffered serious injuries requiring hospital care and the health-care provider's conduct is also at issue.

If your fall occurred on government-owned property (a public sidewalk, municipal building, state park, etc.), the Maine Tort Claims Act requires you to file a written notice of claim within 365 days of the accident under 14 M.R.S. § 8107. This deadline was extended from 180 days effective January 1, 2020, for causes of action accruing on or after that date (P.L. 2019, ch. 214). The notice must substantially comply with the statutory requirements, and no Superior Court action may proceed against a governmental entity or its employees without it. For claims against the State, notice is filed with the responsible agency and the Attorney General; for other governmental entities, notice goes to one of the persons designated in § 8107(3).

Missing the 365-day government notice deadline can end a valid claim against a public entity, even though the general SOL is 6 years. If you were hurt on public property, act promptly. For more on Maine's statutes of limitations generally, see Maine Statute of Limitations.

What a Maine slip and fall claim is worth

Maine slip and fall settlements and verdicts generally include two categories of damages. Economic damages cover your measurable financial losses: medical bills (emergency care, surgery, physical therapy, future treatment), lost wages and lost earning capacity, and out-of-pocket costs such as transportation to medical appointments or home-care assistance. These are documented and calculated with relative precision.

Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and similar intangible harms. Maine does not cap non-economic damages in general personal injury cases, so these awards are set by the jury within the bounds of what is reasonable given the evidence.

Your net recovery is then reduced by your percentage of fault under 14 M.R.S. § 156. If you are found 20% at fault, you keep 80% of the total damages. If you are found 50% or more at fault, you receive nothing. That is why documenting the hazard promptly, preserving photographs, gathering witness contact information, and reporting the incident in writing to the property owner matters: your comparative fault percentage will be shaped by this evidence.

The Maine Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator can help you think through the range of economic and non-economic damages before consulting an attorney.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Premises liability law varies by state and changes, and case values depend on the specific facts. For advice about a specific fall, consult a licensed attorney in Maine.

More Maine Laws

• Maine AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Maine Alimony Laws
• Maine At-Will Employment Laws
• Maine Car Accident Laws
• Maine Car Seat Laws
• Maine Child Support Laws
• Maine Common Law Marriage Laws
• Maine Data Privacy Laws
• Maine Dog Bite Laws
• Maine Emancipation Laws
• Maine Expungement Laws
• Maine Hit and Run Laws
• Maine Lemon Laws
• Maine Power of Attorney Laws
• Maine Recording Laws
• Maine Self-Defense Laws

Sources

• 14 M.R.S. § 8107: Maine Tort Claims Act, Notice of Claim
• 14 M.R.S. § 752: 6-Year General Civil Limitations Period
• 14 M.R.S. § 156: Comparative Negligence
• Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98 (Me. 1972) (Restatement § 343A(1) adopted)
• Williams v. Boise Cascade Corp., 507 A.2d 576 (Me. 1986) (open-and-obvious foreseeability)
• Coffin v. Lariat Associates, 2001 ME 33 (open-and-obvious comparative-fault question)
• Budzko v. One City Center Associates, 2001 ME 37, 767 A.2d 310 (ice/snow duty; no ongoing-storm rule)

---

Explore related resources: Slip and Fall Laws by State | Maine Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator | Maine Statute of Limitations