3 ms·

I don’t think the employer is accountable for infectious diseases that are transmitted in the workplace, given that a minimum safety standard is meet. I have,

by nip180 6y ago

I don’t think the employer is accountable for infectious diseases that are transmitted in the workplace, given that a minimum safety standard is meet. I have, for example, not heard of any liability concerns with teachers returning to the classroom.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I'm not sure if there's any relation between this and liability, but worker's comp is accepting claims claims from people who can plausibly explain that they got COVID at work
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not super related. Worker's comp generally pays out for all injuries, even if the company did everything right to prevent them; it's more accident insurance than liability insurance.
krisoft 6y ago
I'm no lawyer, but if there are no liability concerns then why are they proposing to legislate liability waiving laws? https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-provision-businesses-workers-coronavirus-aid-bill-terrible-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-pro...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The same reason that many states have anti-SLAPP laws. The pure mechanics of defending a lawsuit can be terribly expensive, even if you know you'll win in the end.
- briandear 6y ago
  To insure indemnification. Because otherwise someone getting coronavirus is going to result in a flood of plaintiff’s attorneys looking for paydays. The other issue is that if someone comes to work sick with any infectious disease, liability would get shifted to the employer, which means that would give the employer a right to impose policies that could be draconian. For example, why wouldn’t an employer have a right to inspect your home. They suspected you weren’t engaging in good cleaning practices? After all, since liability would be on the employer if you showed up to work and got people sick (even if asymptomatic,) then they’d have a duty to supervise you 24/7. Or how about an employer firing you for attending a protest, or not wearing a mask outside of work? If there is potentially tens of millions in liability at stake, an employer would have to monitor employees 24/7, perhaps even employing private contractors tracers to keep tabs on people in order to ensure infections didn’t originate in the workplace. A plaintiff’s attorney can be a powerful force. “Don’t use hairdryers in the shower” is a good example of the impact of plaintiff’s attorneys against common sense.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  In reading the actual bill (linked elsewhere), it seems the legislation precludes liability for all suits (brought in state or federal court) for coronavirus unless all of the following hold: a) the employer was not following any guidelines for coronavirus b) exposure was caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct c) the plaintiff suffered actual harm from the exposure to coronavirus. I added emphasis on any--in the event of conflicting guidelines, the employer needs only follow one of them. So if any jurisdiction in the chain says "it's a-ok to pack your employees without masks!", there's no liability for the employee if they follow that, even if the locality says "wear masks! social distance!" While I don't know the details of occupational health and safety laws, I have to imagine there's a general-purpose "unsafe working conditions" action that can be brought even in the absence of specific regulations (I don't readily see one in the US code, but I'd expect at least some states would go that far). This would preclude such suits under pretty much any situation; in particular, you have to actually be exposed to coronavirus and can't merely show that the environment is unsafe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by nip180 6y ago

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I'm not sure if there's any relation between this and liability, but worker's comp is accepting claims claims from people who can plausibly explain that they got COVID at work

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not super related. Worker's comp generally pays out for all injuries, even if the company did everything right to prevent them; it's more accident insurance than liability insurance.

krisoft 6y ago

I'm no lawyer, but if there are no liability concerns then why are they proposing to legislate liability waiving laws? https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-provision-businesses-workers-coronavirus-aid-bill-terrible-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-pro...

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The same reason that many states have anti-SLAPP laws. The pure mechanics of defending a lawsuit can be terribly expensive, even if you know you'll win in the end.
briandear 6y ago
To insure indemnification. Because otherwise someone getting coronavirus is going to result in a flood of plaintiff’s attorneys looking for paydays. The other issue is that if someone comes to work sick with any infectious disease, liability would get shifted to the employer, which means that would give the employer a right to impose policies that could be draconian. For example, why wouldn’t an employer have a right to inspect your home. They suspected you weren’t engaging in good cleaning practices? After all, since liability would be on the employer if you showed up to work and got people sick (even if asymptomatic,) then they’d have a duty to supervise you 24/7. Or how about an employer firing you for attending a protest, or not wearing a mask outside of work? If there is potentially tens of millions in liability at stake, an employer would have to monitor employees 24/7, perhaps even employing private contractors tracers to keep tabs on people in order to ensure infections didn’t originate in the workplace. A plaintiff’s attorney can be a powerful force. “Don’t use hairdryers in the shower” is a good example of the impact of plaintiff’s attorneys against common sense.
jcranmer 6y ago
In reading the actual bill (linked elsewhere), it seems the legislation precludes liability for all suits (brought in state or federal court) for coronavirus unless all of the following hold: a) the employer was not following any guidelines for coronavirus b) exposure was caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct c) the plaintiff suffered actual harm from the exposure to coronavirus. I added emphasis on any--in the event of conflicting guidelines, the employer needs only follow one of them. So if any jurisdiction in the chain says "it's a-ok to pack your employees without masks!", there's no liability for the employee if they follow that, even if the locality says "wear masks! social distance!" While I don't know the details of occupational health and safety laws, I have to imagine there's a general-purpose "unsafe working conditions" action that can be brought even in the absence of specific regulations (I don't readily see one in the US code, but I'd expect at least some states would go that far). This would preclude such suits under pretty much any situation; in particular, you have to actually be exposed to coronavirus and can't merely show that the environment is unsafe.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]