26 ms·

Because there's no way to draw a clear line between "nuisance" suits and "serious" suits. Go ahead, try articulating it in a precise way that can't be gamed.

by _bxg1 6y ago

nickff 6y ago
I think the parent comment was making the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a protection is generally useful, it should be generally available.
- mc32 6y ago
  As a private citizen you’re acting on your own behalf and discretion? Here I can’t sue mr Amash if I disagree with his bill, but I can sue him as a private citizen if he violates my civil rights as a person.
  - codys 6y ago
    The immunity enjoyed by Legislators is similar to but distinct from the Qualified Immunity enjoyed by government employees. In the case of Federal Legislators, their immunity is written into the constitution explicitly. No such explicit provision exists for government employees.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  It IS generally available. If you are acting on the behalf of a private organization (and not a public one) the corporation that you work for is responsible for your actions (short of breaking the law) and not you.
  - nickff 6y ago
    IANAL, but I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation. You may not be worth going after if the corporation has a lot of money and you don't, or the company may indemnify you, but you're probably still liable.
    - pc86 6y ago
      The fact that you use the word "liable" is telling, because QI does not protect someone from illegal actions they take while operating as an agent of the state (or at least it shouldn't/wasn't intended to). It sets up another obstacle whereby if you want to go after an agent of the state personally for their actions, you have to be able to prove those actions are illegal before you can even start talking about their liability.
    - theptip 6y ago
      > I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation Probably depends on exactly where you are, but in the US the "LL" in "LLC" is "Limited Liability". (The same concept applies for a C-corp, and Europe has equivalent constructs AFAIK.) One of the main selling points of a corporation is limited liability. If you are acting on behalf of the company you are very explicitly not "jointly" or in any other way liable for its actions. There are very specific things you have to do wrong to become individually liable; this is called "piercing the veil": https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...
clamprecht 6y ago
It isn't a question of defining that clear line. I think the parent poster is saying: why should only government employees get this special immunity? Why do government employees get to make reasonable mistakes and be protected, but no one else does?
- praptak 6y ago
  Because they act neither in their own name nor for their own benefit. Issuing or denying a permit could easily have millions of dollars of impact. Nobody in their right mind would agree to take that kind of personal responsibility without a proportionally high profit.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    Same is true for any other employee of any other organization. If a cable tech steals something from your house, is the cable company liable, or the cable tech? Edit: a similar doctrine should (but doesn't) apply to decisionmakers at large corporations. If the CEO is told repeatedly about a safety failure and refuses to take action, it's ridiculous to me that the CEO isn't personally liable for any damage or injury caused as a result.
    - pas 6y ago
      In most (all?) countries CEOs (and directors, and employees) are personally liable for criminal acts. The problem is this whole qualified immunity is a civil thing. Workplace safety negligence, theft, police violence all are criminal cases. But. After the the prosecutors (DAs) stopped charging police officers people started suing them in civil court. The problem is not QI per se, the problem is _wtf_ is going on with cops killing anybody in non-violent cases. (And how come there's not a public inquiry when someone dies in law enforcement custody or during any interaction with police. And how come nothing has really changed over the years - except police got the old tanks from the post-9/11 war-on-terror spending spree.)
    - pc86 6y ago
      QI doesn't protect government employees for their illegal actions so you're comparing apples and hammers. QI protects government employees from retaliation for decisions made as part of their job, that are necessary for them to complete their job. Police unions and sociopaths with badges and law degrees have bastardized this to try to use it to protect police officers for murdering people.
SkyBelow 6y ago
So then flip the question, why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?
- _bxg1 6y ago
  That's what I'm saying, is that they shouldn't. And that probably nobody should, because legal recourse is essential, even if it's open to abuse.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I think the idea was that the government is a big target and it hurts everyone when it is the subject of nuisance suits. Whereas an individual is less likely to be targeted.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  I think you've got it backwards: the government itself isn't immune, but individual government employees are. In other words, you can sue the state of Utah over its policy, but not the individual employees implementing that policy.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits? Under the centuries-old principle of sovereign immunity, the government can simply choose not to be liable for anything at all. Sovereign immunity is the default for most countries now, and throughout history. The US and the countries of the EU are relatively unique in allowing themselves to be sued for damages for their failures.
jstanley 6y ago
Is exactly the point I'm making.
jhawk28 6y ago
If there was a way to draw a clear line, it would kill the insurance industry. It is one of the reason why you are required to have insurance on everything.

Because there's no way to draw a clear line between "nuisance" suits and "serious" suits. Go ahead, try articulating it in a precise way that can't be gamed.

by _bxg1 6y ago

Because there's no way to draw a clear line between "nuisance" suits and "serious" suits. Go ahead, try articulating it in a precise way that can't be gamed.

nickff 6y ago

I think the parent comment was making the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a protection is generally useful, it should be generally available.

mc32 6y ago
As a private citizen you’re acting on your own behalf and discretion? Here I can’t sue mr Amash if I disagree with his bill, but I can sue him as a private citizen if he violates my civil rights as a person.
- codys 6y ago
  The immunity enjoyed by Legislators is similar to but distinct from the Qualified Immunity enjoyed by government employees. In the case of Federal Legislators, their immunity is written into the constitution explicitly. No such explicit provision exists for government employees.
bananabreakfast 6y ago
It IS generally available. If you are acting on the behalf of a private organization (and not a public one) the corporation that you work for is responsible for your actions (short of breaking the law) and not you.
- nickff 6y ago
  IANAL, but I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation. You may not be worth going after if the corporation has a lot of money and you don't, or the company may indemnify you, but you're probably still liable.
  - pc86 6y ago
    The fact that you use the word "liable" is telling, because QI does not protect someone from illegal actions they take while operating as an agent of the state (or at least it shouldn't/wasn't intended to). It sets up another obstacle whereby if you want to go after an agent of the state personally for their actions, you have to be able to prove those actions are illegal before you can even start talking about their liability.
  - theptip 6y ago
    > I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation Probably depends on exactly where you are, but in the US the "LL" in "LLC" is "Limited Liability". (The same concept applies for a C-corp, and Europe has equivalent constructs AFAIK.) One of the main selling points of a corporation is limited liability. If you are acting on behalf of the company you are very explicitly not "jointly" or in any other way liable for its actions. There are very specific things you have to do wrong to become individually liable; this is called "piercing the veil": https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...

clamprecht 6y ago

It isn't a question of defining that clear line. I think the parent poster is saying: why should only government employees get this special immunity? Why do government employees get to make reasonable mistakes and be protected, but no one else does?

praptak 6y ago
Because they act neither in their own name nor for their own benefit. Issuing or denying a permit could easily have millions of dollars of impact. Nobody in their right mind would agree to take that kind of personal responsibility without a proportionally high profit.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Same is true for any other employee of any other organization. If a cable tech steals something from your house, is the cable company liable, or the cable tech? Edit: a similar doctrine should (but doesn't) apply to decisionmakers at large corporations. If the CEO is told repeatedly about a safety failure and refuses to take action, it's ridiculous to me that the CEO isn't personally liable for any damage or injury caused as a result.
  - pas 6y ago
    In most (all?) countries CEOs (and directors, and employees) are personally liable for criminal acts. The problem is this whole qualified immunity is a civil thing. Workplace safety negligence, theft, police violence all are criminal cases. But. After the the prosecutors (DAs) stopped charging police officers people started suing them in civil court. The problem is not QI per se, the problem is _wtf_ is going on with cops killing anybody in non-violent cases. (And how come there's not a public inquiry when someone dies in law enforcement custody or during any interaction with police. And how come nothing has really changed over the years - except police got the old tanks from the post-9/11 war-on-terror spending spree.)
  - pc86 6y ago
    QI doesn't protect government employees for their illegal actions so you're comparing apples and hammers. QI protects government employees from retaliation for decisions made as part of their job, that are necessary for them to complete their job. Police unions and sociopaths with badges and law degrees have bastardized this to try to use it to protect police officers for murdering people.

SkyBelow 6y ago

So then flip the question, why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

_bxg1 6y ago
That's what I'm saying, is that they shouldn't. And that probably nobody should, because legal recourse is essential, even if it's open to abuse.
kube-system 6y ago
I think the idea was that the government is a big target and it hurts everyone when it is the subject of nuisance suits. Whereas an individual is less likely to be targeted.
mattkrause 6y ago
I think you've got it backwards: the government itself isn't immune, but individual government employees are. In other words, you can sue the state of Utah over its policy, but not the individual employees implementing that policy.
gamblor956 6y ago
why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits? Under the centuries-old principle of sovereign immunity, the government can simply choose not to be liable for anything at all. Sovereign immunity is the default for most countries now, and throughout history. The US and the countries of the EU are relatively unique in allowing themselves to be sued for damages for their failures.

jstanley 6y ago

Is exactly the point I'm making.

jhawk28 6y ago

If there was a way to draw a clear line, it would kill the insurance industry. It is one of the reason why you are required to have insurance on everything.