Source: https://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/00me104c.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:59:29+00:00

Document:
Cole v. Chandler, Buckley, & Mead Corp.
statutory or common law immunity.  We affirm in part and vacate in part.
following series of events.  Chandler and Buckley were supervised by Cole.
manager advised Cole that he was suspended pending further investigation.
informed Cole that his employment was terminated.
a matter of law.  See id.
speech."  Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65, 69 (Me. 1991) (citations omitted).
of a defamatory statement will be advanced by frank communication."
privilege is a question of fact. See Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82, 87 (Me.
Bay Med. Ctr., 574 A.2d 872, 874 (Me. 1990)).
personal injury, 2) that arises out of and 3) in the course of employment."
employee arising out of and in the course of employment . . . .
employment . . . .
39-A M.R.S.A. § 104 (Supp. 1999).
encompassing construction to the exclusivity provision.  See Beverage v.
Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc., 502 A.2d 486, 489 (Me. 1985); Li v. C.N.
of the legislature's extension of the coverage of workers' compensation." Id.
robbery but did not close the store where the employee was working alone.
compensable.  See Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363 (Me.
fact.  See Knox v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 542 A.2d 363, 366 (Me.
638 A.2d 1161, 1162 (Me. 1994) (citations omitted); see also Comeau v.
Maine Coastal Servs., 449 A.2d 362, 367 (Me. 1982).
did not occur "in the course of" employment.  See id. at 1162-63.
the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a (1977).
against both Chandler and Buckley fail.
for purposes of summary judgment that she knew her statements to be false.
claims seek recovery for injuries other than personal injuries.
claim for injuries other than personal injuries.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 104
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 652