Could Widow Sue Maine Tavern for Husband’s Death in Beer-fueled Fight?

What Do You Think?

Scarborough, ME (WorkersCompensation.com) -- The exclusivity provision in Maine’s workers’ compensation act bars an injured worker, or representative, from suing an employer after obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. One case addresses whether that provision is triggered by a settlement, and how the exclusivity rule might impact lawsuits against bars for alcohol-related deaths.

Two contractors, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Fama, were working in Maine for Sanford Contracting. At the end of the day, they had several beers in the parking lot of the hotel their employer arranged for them. They went to a tavern owned by Bob’s, LLC, and had more alcohol. Back in the hotel parking lot, they go into a fight with each other. Mr. Fama fell, hit his head on the pavement, and died.

Fama’s widow reached a $400,000 workers’ compensation settlement with Sanford Contracting. She then sued Bob’s LLC, as well as Clarke, for wrongful death.

Bob’s asked the court to throw out the case, arguing that the widow was barred from suing it in tort under the workers’ compensation act’s exclusivity provision.

The Maine Supreme Court took up the case. It noted that the exclusivity provision of Maine’s workers’ compensation act prevents a plaintiff from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits and then suing in tort. 

The court also explained that under the "named and retained" provisions of Maine's Liquor Liability Act, a lawsuit cannot proceed against a bar if the intoxicated person being sued is no longer named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Did the exclusivity provision bar the widow from suing tavern that served her husband?

A. No. A settlement does not trigger the exclusivity provision.

B. Yes. Since she couldn’t sue Sanford any longer, she also could not sue her husband’s co-worker.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Fama v. Bob’s LLC, No. Cum-23-409 (Maine 09/24/24),4), which held that the workers’ compensation settlement precluded the widow’s case from going forward against Bob’s.

The court noted that the widow obtained a settlement from Mr. Fama's employer, Sanford. As a result, the exclusivity provision barred her from suing Sanford for additional damages. As a co-employer, Clarke stood in the same shoes as Sanford and thus also could not be sued.

“Because Clarke, as a co-employee of Mr. Fama, stands in the same shoes as Sanford under section 104 of the MWCA, Ms. Fama cannot sue Clarke,” the court wrote. 

Since she could not sue Clarke, under the "named and retained" provisions of the MLLA, she could not sue Bob's.

Share This Article: