PETERS v. SAFT
9/18/1991
ime giving victims a cause of action that was heretofore unclear. Section 2511 thus satisfies substantive due process and equal protection, and does not violate the right to jury trial or the right to a remedy.
Plaintiff next challenges the statutory changes made with respect to joint and several liability. The statute provides:
1. Named and retained. No action against a server may be
maintained unless the minor, the intoxicated individual or the
estate of the minor or intoxicated individual is named as a
defendant in the action and is retained in the action until the
litigation is concluded by trial or settlement.
2. Several but not joint liability. The intoxicated individual
and any server, as described in section 2505, are each
severally liable and not jointly liable for that percentage of
the plaintiff's damages which corresponds to each defendant's
percentage of fault as determined by the court or jury.
28-A M.R.S.A. § 2512. We find no constitutional violation. One of the stated purposes of the Act is to allocate liability for payment of damages fairly in order to encourage the availability of insurance. The legislative purpose is rationally related to the public welfare, and the means employed in section 2512 bear a rational relationship to the achievement of that purpose.
Finally, plaintiff challenges the notice of claims provision:
Every plaintiff seeking damages under this Act must give
written notice to all defendants within 180 days of the date of
the server's conduct creating liability under this Act. . . .
Failure to give written notice within the time specified is
grounds for dismissal of the claim, unless the plaintiff
provides written notice within the limits of section 2514 and
shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been
filed within the 180-day limit.
28-A M.R.S.A. § 2513. Plaintiff argues that this provision places an enormous burden on him and is irrational. We find no undue burden, particularly in light of the fact that for good cause shown, the statute permits the bringing of an action even after the 180 days. Section 2513 has a legitimate purpose related to the ends of the Act; it makes potential defendants aware
The entry is:
Judgment vacated in part. Remanded to the Superior Court for the entry of a declaration of the constitutionality of section 2509. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
McKUSICK, C.J., and CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ., concurring.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys