COVID-19 Thread

[PeaveyFury]

So if the teacher is allowed to stay home there's still a chance of them contracting it in any number of places. I do understand the potential increased risk at school and the "forced" nature of work, I'm just having a tough time envisioning courts allowing those kinds of suits given the circumstances.

 

And would said teacher even be able to prove beyond doubt they contracted it at school?

 

You're correct in that any case would require reasonable proof that the person contracted it at their employer for it to be valid if it actually went to court. IE, the person was isolated in all other situations save for work, etc. But I will practically guarantee that we'll see a case brought to court similar to this against some employer over the next several months, and as with any sort of unprecedented situation like this, you'd have to wait and see how the courts rule to know how prevalent that will be going forward. I'm unfamiliar with what case law might be out there for quasi-similar circumstances with other infectious diseases to know if there's already a basis that could be used.

 

Teacher? Wouldn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, just has to be credible enough to get a settlement.

 

Very true. Cities/municipalities are very unwilling to go to court on stuff like this, which is why there are often settlements reached for police cases, etc.

[jjfanec]

Insurance keeps coming up in these conversations and I'm not understanding the validity of those concerns. You can't sue someone for contracting flu, a cold, or any other kind of virus. It's an assumed risk of just being alive. I'm not seeing how anyone could sue anyone over getting COVID19. To make anything of that nature stick, the party being sued pretty much always has to be knowingly be putting people at risk. In other words you have a positive test, know it, and get on a plane. Just getting a person sick isn't enough.

 

If you were to visit Disney World right now, for example, you'd have no case to make against them if you got sick.

 

The Disney World example isn't an apt analogy, as you'd be voluntarily choosing to go there.

 

Many companies, and likely a lot of school districts, are concerned about requiring employees to choose between their own safety and losing their job, especially if those employees have a condition that makes them high risk. There's a very valid possibility that an employer could be held liable if an employee is 'forced' into a high-risk situation as a condition of employment and becomes gravely ill or dies.

 

And yeah, homer is right about the liability issue of the property owner being responsible for what happens there.

 

I have been told directly by people who run festivals that insurance went through the roof for covid. They still insure events that are optional because you still have liability.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Especially if you have photos of people without masks, not social distancing, etc. you can make the case they weren't proactively keeping the park safe.

 

Have you been on Twitter? That ship's sailed, lol.

[FVBrewerFan]

Especially if you have photos of people without masks, not social distancing, etc. you can make the case they weren't proactively keeping the park safe.

 

Have you been on Twitter? That ship's sailed, lol.

 

Exactly my point. Risk to insurance companies is very real.

[DHonks]

What was the rationale for forcing teachers in to do virtual learning?

 

The rationale was that teachers would have good WiFi and access to their resources. I think in the spring a few teachers boasted on social media about picking up second jobs during the day while assigning remote work. So this added accountability supposedly.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

What was the rationale for forcing teachers in to do virtual learning?

 

The rationale was that teachers would have good WiFi and access to their resources. I think in the spring a few teachers boasted on social media about picking up second jobs during the day while assigning remote work. So this added accountability supposedly.

 

I won't fault the hustle but jeezus you guys...just do it and be quiet.

[jerichoholicninja]

Insurance keeps coming up in these conversations and I'm not understanding the validity of those concerns. You can't sue someone for contracting flu, a cold, or any other kind of virus. It's an assumed risk of just being alive. I'm not seeing how anyone could sue anyone over getting COVID19. To make anything of that nature stick, the party being sued pretty much always has to be knowingly be putting people at risk. In other words you have a positive test, know it, and get on a plane. Just getting a person sick isn't enough.

 

If you were to visit Disney World right now, for example, you'd have no case to make against them if you got sick.

 

The Disney World example isn't an apt analogy, as you'd be voluntarily choosing to go there.

 

Many companies, and likely a lot of school districts, are concerned about requiring employees to choose between their own safety and losing their job, especially if those employees have a condition that makes them high risk. There's a very valid possibility that an employer could be held liable if an employee is 'forced' into a high-risk situation as a condition of employment and becomes gravely ill or dies.

 

And yeah, homer is right about the liability issue of the property owner being responsible for what happens there.

 

I have been told directly by people who run festivals that insurance went through the roof for covid. They still insure events that are optional because you still have liability.

 

Large events with potentially thousands of people might be different but this spring when I was part of the discussions of whether amateur baseball would happen or not we asked some insurance companies and lawyers and everyone told us there was no liability for COVID. It was an assumed risk of going out in public.

[FVBrewerFan]

Large events with potentially thousands of people might be different but this spring when I was part of the discussions of whether amateur baseball would happen or not we asked some insurance companies and lawyers and everyone told us there was no liability for COVID. It was an assumed risk of going out in public.

 

I have no doubt that was true back then, wonder if they would have the same response now. Either way, yea, it's the law of deep pockets. An amateur baseball club isn't the same type of target as Disney or a municipality, school district, etc.

 

Speaking of baseball, it's very similar to the extended netting debate. Forever it was considered a known risk to attend a game. Printed right on your ticket too. Yet the netting was added, they had to weigh the risk of lawsuits vs the inconvenience.

[wallus]

I help run a large festival and have not heard anything about insurance rates changing because of COVID.