5 ms·

I agree with this. I also feel (perhaps cynically) that banning is a good thing as a taxpaying citizen. Ban it, get the rule on the books but don't actually a

I agree with this. I also feel (perhaps cynically) that banning is a good thing as a taxpaying citizen. Ban it, get the rule on the books but don't actually actively enforce it. It highly limits the state's liability if it does turn out late next year that outdoor gatherings due increase probabilities. Otherwise the state is on the hook for unlimited lawsuits related to criminal negligence for giving improper guidance which lead to loss of life. Its just like jaywalking rules. Its rarely enforced but prevents lawsuits in the event there is a fatality.

josh3736 6y ago
That's not how this works. The government cannot have "liability" for action or inaction because of sovereign immunity. No private person can sue the state without the state's permission. The rule is default deny. There is legislation that allows you to sue the government in specific, narrow circumstances, but nothing really relevant to this situation. I'm sure someone will try anyway, but the suit will certainly be dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Ultimately monies get paid out if a whiff of wrong-doing is found. Perhaps not "liable" in the official lawyer sense but expensive settlements paid by the states are definitely fair game. Some random examples: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2020-02-26/texas-teacher-who-sued-school-district-reaches-settlement https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2020-... https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Harlandale-ISD-to-pay-700-000-to-its-former-15777131.php https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Harlandal...
  - staticman2 6y ago
    The post you replied to was correct. Your reply shows you didn't understand it. I suggest you look up sovereign immunity if you want to learn more.

josh3736 6y ago

That's not how this works. The government cannot have "liability" for action or inaction because of sovereign immunity. No private person can sue the state without the state's permission. The rule is default deny. There is legislation that allows you to sue the government in specific, narrow circumstances, but nothing really relevant to this situation. I'm sure someone will try anyway, but the suit will certainly be dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

somethoughts 6y ago
Ultimately monies get paid out if a whiff of wrong-doing is found. Perhaps not "liable" in the official lawyer sense but expensive settlements paid by the states are definitely fair game. Some random examples: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2020-02-26/texas-teacher-who-sued-school-district-reaches-settlement https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2020-... https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Harlandale-ISD-to-pay-700-000-to-its-former-15777131.php https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Harlandal...
- staticman2 6y ago
  The post you replied to was correct. Your reply shows you didn't understand it. I suggest you look up sovereign immunity if you want to learn more.