Read on Twitter
Several different kind of liability risk discussed here should be parceled out. 1/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-liability-idUSKCN223179?taid=5e9edcd95a107f0001b4cb70&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
There are tort suits "should employees or customers contract COVID-19 once operations resume." Why not contract? Firms will worry that populations won't be in position to sign a waiver (e.g., shoppers in market), won't sign, or it would be unenforceable (e.g., kids in camp).
There are contract suits for "coronavirus-related disruptions to issues like wages and hours, leave and travel." The article points to this @USChamber document: https://www.uschamber.com/coronavirus/implementing-national-return-to-work-plan#liability
That document mixes backward-looking immunity (securities) with forward-looking safe harbors for, say, discriminating agains workers while operating particular business lines.
Figuring out which sorts of immunity is socially useful (it subsidizes business activity which has spillover effects) and which are just rent seeking is a hard task, and I don't know why we'd feel confident in the Federal Government's ability to calibrate well.
I *do* think that some kind of legislative solution for some types of Covid-19-related litigation would be a good thing, because the alternative isn't the glory of the common law, trending toward efficiency, but rather a series of MDLs and arbitral ad hoc mass tribunals.
If a national solution looks like the @USChamber's wish list of greatest hits (which throws in med-mal damage caps), then it's not obvious which is the "devil you know" and which is the "deep blue sea." Maybe it's time to finally turn the entire US economy over to Ken Feinberg.
I would love to references if people are already thinking about Covid-litigation immunity/channelling.
(H/T @alahav)
(H/T @alahav)
