Talk About Marriage banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
There is the debate on no lock-downs, and it being a violation of freedom so what does one do in An actual recent incident in our town.

Over 20 people have been exposed due to a covid19 positive patient from another state travelling here for vacation.

2 officers were exposed during a traffic stop.
Little while later the people were involved in an accident.
3 more officers were exposed, EMS personnel, fire department personnel from 2 different agencies, life flight personnel as they had to be airlifted., as well as all the people who stopped to help before emergency personnel arrived.

They were notified after the fact the one of the people in the out of state vehicle had tested positive in their state before travelling.

5 officers are half the police force.

They have posted in local paper trying to find anyone who stopped to help the people before local authorities arrived and are trying to figure out how to handle the situation.

Should they be liable for the lost work, and any possible health problems of those exposed due to their lack of respect and concern? If anyone dies from exposure to them should they be charged with negligent homicide?

If someone leaves a state, or area that is supposed to still be stay at home should they be liable?

Edit to add.

A different out of stater told:
cashier at (local grocer) that his niece or daughter tested positive for it and they brought her here for vacation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,839 Posts
IMO, if they knew they had tested positive, they should be held accountable for exposing others, and the consequences of that. In this case, it seems clear they knew and acted irresponsibly anyway.

If they had not known, then it's a tough call, but IMO they should not be held accountable for something that far too many people are doing despite the stay at home orders. For example, many members or congress are traveling back and forth, and the president and veep have traveled - and apparently will continue to do so despite staff members having tested positive. Many people will not wear masks in stores, for instance, and may be carriers exposing other people - they aren't being arrested in most places, but should be, IMO; then if they test positive, should be fined and possibly sent to jail.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,229 Posts
IMO, if they knew they had tested positive, they should be held accountable for exposing others, and the consequences of that. In this case, it seems clear they knew and acted irresponsibly anyway.

If they had not known, then it's a tough call, but IMO they should not be held accountable for something that far too many people are doing despite the stay at home orders. For example, many members or congress are traveling back and forth, and the president and veep have traveled - and apparently will continue to do so despite staff members having tested positive. Many people will not wear masks in stores, for instance, and may be carriers exposing other people - they aren't being arrested in most places, but should be, IMO; then if they test positive, should be fined and possibly sent to jail.
If one knowingly spread this virus then sure... the problem is that most people are contagious 48-hours prior to their first symptom. And, given that you can’t get tested unless you have at least two or more symptoms related to this disease, it would be hard to prosecute someone who did not know they were carrying the virus.

That is what makes this worse than your typical influenza or other coronaviruses that we are familiar with. In most respiratory viruses, one is only contagious when they show symptoms.

If we had a plan for trace testing, then we could resolve the issue of ever having to shut down the economy in the first place. And, we would not have to consider these types of liable cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If one knowingly spread this virus then sure... the problem is that most people are contagious 48-hours prior to their first symptom. And, given that you can’t get tested unless you have at least two or more symptoms related to this disease, it would be hard to prosecute someone who did not know they were carrying the virus.

That is what makes this worse than your typical influenza or other coronaviruses that we are familiar with. In most respiratory viruses, one is only contagious when they show symptoms.

If we had a plan for trace testing, then we could resolve the issue of ever having to shut down the economy in the first place. And, we would not have to consider these types of liable cases.
According to the local paper they knew, but chose to travel anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
IMO, if they knew they had tested positive, they should be held accountable for exposing others, and the consequences of that. In this case, it seems clear they knew and acted irresponsibly anyway.

If they had not known, then it's a tough call, but IMO they should not be held accountable for something that far too many people are doing despite the stay at home orders. For example, many members or congress are traveling back and forth, and the president and veep have traveled - and apparently will continue to do so despite staff members having tested positive. Many people will not wear masks in stores, for instance, and may be carriers exposing other people - they aren't being arrested in most places, but should be, IMO; then if they test positive, should be fined and possibly sent to jail.
One of the things about our area is people seem to be coming here to social distance, BUT, if they are positive and stay in a cabin, when they check out their are so many enjoying the extra time off work and no school, cleaners only have about 3 hours to clean a cabin before the next guests check in.

If they are hiding it; if these people hadn't been in an accident no one would have known; even if they don't go out in public the cleaners and next guests are being put at risk.
I don't care how much bleach is used no one can totally disinfect a 880-15,000 square foot home, from a week of positive patients staying in it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,229 Posts
According to the local paper they knew, but chose to travel anyway.
well that of course is different. However, I suspect that if your state has lifted orders to stay in place and there are no mandated quarantine for those traveling to your locale, I think it will be difficult to prosecute or hold financially liable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
well that of course is different. However, I suspect that if your state has lifted orders to stay in place and there are no mandated quarantine for those traveling to your locale, I think it will be difficult to prosecute or hold financially liable.
That is kind of "cross-border" legality issue and I don't have the knowledge to know how that would work.
Maybe civil litigation?

To my knowledge Where they are from they are still supposed to be shelter in place and no non-essential travel, but my state has opened up.
I thought regardless any who had tested positive were supposed to be self-quarantining.

Big can of worms.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,229 Posts
That is kind of "cross-border" legality issue and I don't have the knowledge to know how that would work.
Maybe civil litigation?

To my knowledge Where they are from they are still supposed to be shelter in place and no non-essential travel, but my state has opened up.
I thought regardless any who had tested positive were supposed to be self-quarantining.

Big can of worms.
This is where multiple voices dealing with a single crisis can be confusing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,884 Posts

Even if the person doesn't meet all 3 requirements to be prosecuted for criminal misconduct (such as intent), there is always civil court where the burden of proof is less. Sue their asses.

IMO, they should most definitely be held liable for any losses to those infected. I would even go for loss of conjugal relations.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,229 Posts

Even if the person doesn't meet all 3 requirements to be prosecuted for criminal misconduct (such as intent), there is always civil court where the burden of proof is less. Sue their asses.

IMO, they should most definitely be held liable for any losses to those infected. I would even go for loss of conjugal relations.
I agree, but there is a push (lobbying) by corporate America to reduce a litigation action when it comes to infections during this pandemic (when states lift stay at home orders). And, while a person could sue another person, most folks tend to go after the deep pockets, because suing another individual is more costly than it is beneficial, in other words, good luck on collecting any money.

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
43,687 Posts
A different out of stater told:
cashier at (local grocer) that his niece or daughter tested positive for it and they brought her here for vacation.
What state is their home state?

How old is the daughter?

Something does not make sense. In order for a person to get tested in most states, they have to have a fever of 103 degrees or higher and have a few symptoms. So some idiots took their daughter who was very sick on vacation? That makes no sense at all.

Another thing that makes no sense is that the contact tracing is usually done right after diagnosis. Not after the test comes back positive, the family travels to another state and then returns home. The time line is not making sense.

Should they be able to sue? Don't have enough info yet. If the responsible family members (if he daughter is under aged she is not responsible, her parents are.) did not take precaution, then perhaps they can be sued in civil court.

It might be considered a crime (terrorism?) knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease. It does not matter that they are out of state. When in Rome, Roman laws apply.

However, I think that the court will also look at what precautions the police and others did to protect themselves. There is an obligation both ways.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
43,687 Posts
To add to my above post....

A civil law suit only makes sense if the responsible persons actually have enough assets to take in a settlement.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
43,687 Posts
I agree, but there is a push (lobbying) by corporate America to reduce a litigation action when it comes to infections during this pandemic (when states lift stay at home orders). And, while a person could sue another person, most folks tend to go after the deep pockets, because suing another individual is more costly than it is beneficial, in other words, good luck on collecting any money.

I think that corporations should get legal protection from liability. Like you say, people will sue them just because they have deep pockets.

Keep in mind that most laws that protect from liability only apply when the company can show that they followed reasonable protections/standards. So some company that did not allow their employees to wear face masks, that did not provide extra precautions such as social distancing could still be sued. The idea of these types of protection laws are to stand in the way of frivolous law suits.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,229 Posts
I think that corporations should get legal protection from liability. Like you say, people will sue them just because they have deep pockets.

Keep in mind that most laws that protect from liability only apply when the company can show that they followed reasonable protections/standards. So some company that did not allow their employees to wear face masks, that did not provide extra precautions such as social distancing could still be sued. The idea of these types of protection laws are to stand in the way of frivolous law suits.
I do not disagree with you. I am simply saying that this is being lobbied for as states begin to open up without a plan. Since there are no clear and published guidelines it is hard to see how we provide protection without information.

I believe Congress should put an amendment into such a bill that requires the CDC guidelines be released along with a bill that provides corporations protection against such liabilities. And, that the guidelines be made public for not just gov, mayors, but for everyone to follow. We need to have an understanding of best practices and not just protection for those that have influence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
What state is their home state?

How old is the daughter?

Something does not make sense. In order for a person to get tested in most states, they have to have a fever of 103 degrees or higher and have a few symptoms. So some idiots took their daughter who was very sick on vacation? That makes no sense at all.

Another thing that makes no sense is that the contact tracing is usually done right after diagnosis. Not after the test comes back positive, the family travels to another state and then returns home. The time line is not making sense.

Should they be able to sue? Don't have enough info yet. If the responsible family members (if he daughter is under aged she is not responsible, her parents are.) did not take precaution, then perhaps they can be sued in civil court.

It might be considered a crime (terrorism?) knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease. It does not matter that they are out of state. When in Rome, Roman laws apply.

However, I think that the court will also look at what precautions the police and others did to protect themselves. There is an obligation both ways.
The positive case of the car accident was the only thing in the paper, and age wasn't reported.

They had the accident in our local town while on "vacation." They came here from their state which still has stay at home orders, and concerned citizens who stopped to help, as well as, emergency personnel who showed up later had no idea they were dealing with a positive case of covid19 until notified a couple days later.


Something must have been going on with the tourists before the wreck because paper said 2 officers were exposed to them in a traffic stop Before the accident. Doesn't say why the officers initiated a traffic stop, or the time frame between the stop and the people then being involved in the accident.


On the daughter or niece incident I have no idea how sick, it was a tourist popping off to a cashier at our only grocery store so he could have just been being an asshole, although knowing how inconsiderate many are starting to get I do find it believable. Car accident being a case in point.

As far as being able to share the local newspaper story no. They refuse to do anything online.

If anything shows up in state news I will post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Even if someone didn't know they were positive but are from an area with wide community spread, which does have stay at home orders and travel out anyway I personally think they should be liable if they inadvertently spread it to others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,884 Posts
If people own a home with a mortgage, they have liability insurance under their homeowner's policy which may kick in for the settlement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
@EleGirl Portion ofl the article I feel I can safely post.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,105 Posts
That is kind of "cross-border" legality issue and I don't have the knowledge to know how that would work.
Maybe civil litigation?

To my knowledge Where they are from they are still supposed to be shelter in place and no non-essential travel, but my state has opened up.
I thought regardless any who had tested positive were supposed to be self-quarantining.

Big can of worms.
wrt criminal charges, OK can't prosecute them if they weren't breaking the law in OK. If the law in their home state said they couldn't leave, OK can't prosecute them for that as they have no jurisdiction where the law was broken.

The law can be strange.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top