Question

This legislation would shield businesses from liability for any SAR-CoV-2 related cost, injuries or deaths. So the survivors of the employees that died in that Chicago tortilla factory could not sue for wrongful death. The barber in NY that opened in violation the order to remain closed and had a COVID-19 positive employee working with customer, could not be sued by any of the over 1000 customer exposed should they test positive. What do you think, should businesses be shielded from being sued by employees or customers who's infection can be trace back to a business? #coronavirus #pandemic #shieldlaw
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...cRlgk

Answer 1

If you are one of the people who believe that it’s your choice to take the risk, like the Barber shop, then you should not be allowed to sue. You absolutely cannot have it both ways.  

Comments

@ignorant72 This law would prevent suing even if the business knowingly acted in a negligent manner placing employees or customer at risk. In such a case the employer/business is taking advantage of the trust their employees and customers have in them. No one should be prevented from suing someone simply because they trusted them.  

---

@modernistic haha I already said we’ll have to agree to disagree. Are you going to point a gun to my head to think like you. Move on.  

---

It’s not yet safe to reopen the economy. Full stop. If anyone gets sued, it should be the governors of the redneck states like Georgia and Florida that are recklessly reopening in defiance of science and common sense.  

---

@magavern93614 Who forced anyone to work? Were they dragged out of their homes and placed in chains while working?  

---

@magavern93614 Who is forcing you to travel to or interact with anyone in/from GA or FL.? "It’s not yet safe to reopen the economy. " According to whom, you? If you are afraid stay home

Answer 2

Another sleazy Ploy by Trump and Republicans to get Americans working even though it's dangerous to their health just so Trump can better the economy and get reelected so he can continue to profit as well as enable his wealthy friends to reap the benefits of his presidency

Comments

It's a way to prevent people from receiving unemployment too, since the jobs are technically available.  

Answer 3

I work in an essential business and I am the plant manager at this facility. I believe that if the employer has taken the necessary precautions to keep their employees safe, I absolutely feel that they should be protected against law suites. All of the issues with employees in my case are the choices that they have made outside of work. If both the employees and the employer do their part, issues would be minimal.  

Comments

Whether the business provided suffice protection or precautions is something a court should decide not the business. This law would provide unlimited shielding so ever if the business was negligent they could not be sued.  

---

I 100% agree with you. Employers have a responsibility to keep their teams and their patrons safe. I can’t say that I am on the side of an unlimited shield but I understand to some regard. People can run their business the way they want if there are no laws to mandate them to adhere to our new social guidelines. Patrons have a choice to do business with them and employees have a choice to work there or not if they do not feel it is safe.  

Answer 4

I don't like these blanket liability laws but the Federal Government has provided such poor leadership and has been contradictory in their guidance that I almost don't blame business for bad outcomes that occur based on what Feds have allowed to happen. That said no to the liability shield.  

Answer 5

Would this mean you cant file workman comp?  

Comments

This would prohibit holding the business liable. If you can get workman's comp without needing to prove the business was at fault then it would not effect your filing.  

Answer 6

This would make things worse. The economy can not recover until people feel safe. Would this make you feel safe?  

Answer 7

Are you kidding? You wanna bank rip the insurance industry too and clog the courts for YEARS? This is how you do it. Who is suing the “essential” businesses? Are you going to sue Costco if you get it? The gas station? The weed dispensary? No one has sued the nursing homes for those deaths, and we KNOW for SURE those people got it there because they never left. So this is an insane conversation. You would be able sue if you got the flu. You wouldn’t be able to sue if you got SARS. There is no basis for the whiny, entitled and absurd complaint that “Now we can’t sue! ”

Comments

@ignorant72 I’m wondering how they think they would be able to sue anyway. You can’t prove where you caught it. Except nursing homes, I agree we know where they came from.  

---

@tremann Lawyer would prove this the same why the do in cancer cases. By establish a "cluster" exists. If you have several people that become infected and the only common denominator is a specific business, then you have a cluster and a link. They will lawsuits on these grounds all the time.  

---

A “cluster” doesn’t mean anything when we are dealing with something that they are telling us is “so contagious” that we have to wear masks or we will infect people 6 feet away from us with just our breath. Contact tracing isn’t guaranteed, it’s a guess, especially when even asymptomatic people can transmit it. And besides, if you think the business owner is responsible for infection because he opened, then the people who showed up “against the recommendations of doctors” are also equally responsible for going out when those same experts told them not to. so either they are contributorily negligent and there is no case, or then we have opened up lawsuits among people, where you can sue a single mom who tests positive but is asymptomatic so she stops at the Walmart pharmacy to pick up her baby’s medicine on her way home. Should make this a fun country to live in.  

---

@ignorant72 since there has not yet been a COVID-19 lawsuit there is no case law to rely on. These precedence will be set by the party that has the best lawyer. The lawyer that can best present their case to the jury and convince them they are right. This lawsuit will be crap-shot in the beginning but with the stakes are high and you can be sure the lawyer that make their livings off of civil liberality will do everything they can to build a body of case law that leans in favor of the plaintiff like they have done with medical malpractice, consumer safety and product safety.  

Answer 8

"Essential" businesses should be shielded-however businesses that violated the stay at home order should have SOME liability. But remember. people chose to go to the businesses that violated the order!  

Comments

Even if that essential business acts negligently and knowingly put workers and customers that trust it at risk? Because this law would prevent suing even if the business knowingly acted negligently.  

---

There are always exception @baelbeer, Thats why lawyers will always have jobs.  

---

@chorography But this law makes no room for exceptions, it prohibits suing for COVID-19 under any circumstance.  

---

@baelbeer If you consider if negligent to open, it’s contributory negligence for customers to go out.  

---

@ignorant72 Not if they trust the business when they say have done everything required and it is safe. If the customer acts base on these actions by the business and for this reason believe it is safe.  

Answer 9

They don’t want to hold anyone liable to get the economy going because they know there is not enough cleaning supplies and ppe for industry to hold anyone accountable. This is a terrible precedent but our leaders and even many of us failed to prepare what was needed for a pandemic. I imagine public health departments will still rule in certain states based on individual constitutions in regards to businesses being able to open.  

Answer 10

Going forward all should be exempt. It is silent and invisible. We as consumers have to make a choice. I choose to live using precautions as a RESPONSIBLE adult.  

Comments

So if a business knowingly acts negligently putting employees and customers that trust them at risk they should not be held libel?  

---

@deimos86 what about the workers that are forced to work or lose unemployment who are then infected at work? I don’t know the right answers, but a blanket exemption doesn’t seem right either.  

---

Workers should have protection, not patrons.  

Answer 11

If businesses are putting profit before the well-being of their employees and the public they should be held liable when people die because of their greed.  

Answer 12

How about at least provide some PTO or insurance benefits to employees and mandate it federally?  

Answer 13

I've been saying this for a couple of weeks and have not gotten a response from our local leadership. If you open your town or buisness against the urging of the greater scientific and medical community that is reckless endangerment. If you act recklessly as a business or government entity and people get hurt you should be held liable for damages. If the entity's in charge of making these decisions feel so strongly that opening up will not lead to an uncontrolled outbreak leading to substantial loss if life and health than they should have no problem TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE!  

Comments

@mainstay In Korea names of patrons are all provided to open businesses. Some have completely lied

---

@valene4 can you clarify what you are trying to say? I think you are missing words or possibly having a stroke. If the later please seek medical attention.  

---

@mainstay in order to open establishments in Korea the customers had to provide their names at nightclubs etc in case of a breakout, but many lied. One person is responsible for 100 infections last I saw.  

---

@valene4 I did see that. one guy caused the shutdown of the entire nightclub industry in that city. By limiting the liability you are just encouraging reckless behavior and diverting the burden onto the people and the healthcare system and eventually back onto the buisnesses. Its almost like its an election year and they want to prop everything up just enough to get through the elections and who really gives a shit what happens long term.  

Answer 14

So far I have been playing devil's advocate for oneside of this issue. I am now going to switch side and play devil's advocate for the other side. Several of you have made very good arguments for this side of the issue. Lets say you have a business that is very diligent and takes the responsibility they have and trust they hold dearly striving to be a responsible member of their community. They follow all the best practice and recommended preventative measure as well as tell all employees and customer not to come in if they are sick. But they have an employee or customer that has tested positive and is asymptotic. This person infects several people in the business. Doesn't this business deserve to be shielded from being sued? After all we live in a very litigious society today were even the innocent are getting sued along side the guilty. We are bombarded with lawyer ads telling us to sue and get our share, what we are owed, what we are in-titled too. So we can be certain there will be a boatload of COVID-19 suits in our future.  

Comments

@baelbeer some negligence is probably obvious enough for litigation, like telling people they must show up to work or be fired. All of this should be moot point with a good public health system seeking compliance and adressing concerns from workers and public and not allowing them to open unless certain conditions are met.  

---

It doesn't matter. If you are not adhering to the guidliness set fourth by the recognized health and science authorities you are negligent. Unless your buisness has been deemed safe to reopen with or with out restrictions and you do not adhear to that guidline and it leads to a widespread infection chain than you should be held liable. It is the last line of defense to protect people. If only there was a lawyer on the city council who could chime in.  

---

@mainstay but in my example the business is doing everything it can to do what the authorities and science tell them to do. They have no way to stop an asymptomatic person from entering the business and infecting several people creating a cluster that is clearly linked to this business. Lawyers win cases in these circumstances all the time. And the only traceable source is this business. How does this business find, trace and identify someone that is asymptomatic to prove they were not negligent?  

---

@baelbeer I think a limit to liability is in order and if you want to open then you take that risk. Its like anyone can slip on a business’ floor and be held liable to a degree.  

---

@baelbeer simplily by opening they are not complying. if the particuler biz is deamed safe enough to reopen and their are guidliness and somebody gets sick then the burden of proof falls on the plantif to show that the buisness was not in compliance. If they fail to do that then the buisness is not neglagent and is not liable. If the courts rule to limit the scope of the govonors orders then we enter an area where the burden for public safety falls on the muncipalities and the buisnesses.  

---

@mainstay Thankspically, in cancer lawsuit all the lawyers has to do is show the business is a cluster center and link there client to that center. In civil law the accused does not have the presumption of innocence like in criminal law. In civil law you have to prove you were not negligent and that can be a steep barrier to clear. Another good example of this is consumer lawsuits.  

---

@baelbeer bingo.  

Answer 15

Well since corporations are people , I would say. if I as , a person , did something that would cause injury to another person, I think I would be held legally responsible. The republicans worked so hard to get corporations classified as people so they can collect money They can’t have it both ways

Comments

Oh but they can and probably will. I mean whos going to stop them?  

Answer 16

If it was possible to sue a business for coming down with Covid19, I think several things would have to be proven. There would have to be evidence that the business KNEW someone was positive. The person would have to PROVE thats where they got it, and there would have to be real damages that are permanent or costly.  

Comments

All you have to prove is reckless negligence and if a buisness disregards the order combined with contact tracing it is totally provable in a clivil case.  

---

@mainstay good point but totally provable it is not. Contact tracing is not very accurate or we would've contained this problem right away.  

Answer 17

Needed legislation

Answer 18

If businesses put all of the safety precautions in place, I am fine with this. Also, how would you know for sure if these employees got it at work?  

Answer 19

This is an intriguing concept, last I checked slavery was illegal and no one was forced to work. Proving that anyone contracted COVI@pharisee3 in their workplace but not at home, their supermarket or another common area that they were at would be next to impossible. I'm leaning towards this is unnecessary legislation.  

Comments

@hines resorting to setting your profile picture to a bald eagle and American flag makes me assume you are an eagle and trying to reason with an eagle is pointless. They just squwaaaa and flap around. Squawww tHe cUrrEnT GuIdLInE dOesNt aPply tO aLl bUsinesS nOw dOeS iT squaw!  

---

@mainstay Assumptions never work out well for those that make them. Please try and deal in facts rather than ad hominem, presuming you are capable of doing so.  

---

@hines I changed my profile picture to a waaaaay cooler eagle! I am obviously the superior mind here. squawww!  

---

@mainstay You are obviously a troll, but whatever spins your propellers

---

@hines awww I think we are on the verge of a break through!  

Answer 20

No liability-if you choose to walk through the door of a business or workplace, you bear the risk and consequences

Comments

But if the reason you went thought that door into work or a business is because you trusted them when they said it was safe, but they actually were doing nothing to remediate the risk (i, e. they lied) then the business bears the risk because they lied.  

---

@vintner35 so a person should have no reasonable expectation of a safety?  

---

So. Negligence by a business that causes you injury is not their fault?  

Answer 21

If you place your employees or the public in undue risks, you deserve what you get. not a free pass