Is Corona Positive Missouri Stylist Liable if someone dies or gets sick

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Plotus
"
One hundred-forty clients at a hair salon in Missouri may have been exposed to COVID-19 after a second hairstylist at the location tested positive for the coronavirus.

had been exposed after a stylist worked for eight days while showing symptoms.



I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are on this? I think we're going to see a lot more stuff like this in the near future.

I think it is one thing to go back to work, I think it's another if you go to work knowing you have symptoms."


Well of course... Anyone with a lick of sense should it is completely reckless and criminal to take a possible lethal illness to a place where people will be directly infected in All likely hood. YES CERTAINLY any individual doing such a despicable act with fore knowledge should be held responsible, up to and including prison or jail time.

a reply to: JAGStorm

well at least in jail they dont have to worry about getting food or paying rent right?

Well yea-but... they are infectious there too. But it's damn wrong for them to infect knowingly or even suspecting they have the virus....

Regardless the stylist will not be sued or prosecuted because no one forced the people to come get a hair cut. And they could had wore mask themselves,then when getting home washed their hands and hair and clothes.

Only if they credit for saving lives by passing on immunity. This has all the hallmarks of witch hunt.

a reply to: highvein

There are lawsuits over car wrecks all the time. What a stupid argument. Yes, if sold a defective product you can use the car manufacturer. If someone with covid worked on your car and you got infected you could use the employer. It's literally their job to make sure customers are safe when doing business with them.

a reply to: bender151

Are we going to sue over every "potentially lethal" pathogen, or is SARS-CoV-2/covid special?

What determines whether its litigation worthy or not?

a reply to: JAGStorm

I don't know much, at all, about what happened, but to answer your question -- you would have to look at how courts determine cases like this. In my experience, a court would want to determine if there was anything malicious about it...if they acted with reckless disregard for human life. They'd want to determine how much of the responsibility relies with the customers infected by going to the salon -- what risks they were aware of. They'd also look at what precautions were in place, their policies, what actions they've taken since. They'd also look at the person who was symptomatic, and that person would likely be named as a defendant separate from the salon. Did that person have a reasonable belief they had COVID-19 -- did they know they had been exposed or had traveled. Did they inform management/salon owner.

Personally, I don't think any court would find the salon 100% responsible though...not even close. But that's just my take.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: highvein

There are lawsuits over car wrecks all the time. What a stupid argument. Yes, if sold a defective product you can use the car manufacturer. If someone with covid worked on your car and you got infected you could use the employer. It's literally their job to make sure customers are safe when doing business with them.

How would you prove the only source of infection was the car?


I think that’s the problem with Covid19 lawsuits, you would have to prove a specific individual was the source. Vs the gas pump, Walmart, restaurants, any key pad, any touch screen, door handles, bathrooms, facets, not properly wearing and disposing of gloves and masks........

I could keep listing?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Plotus
"
One hundred-forty clients at a hair salon in Missouri may have been exposed to COVID-19 after a second hairstylist at the location tested positive for the coronavirus.

had been exposed after a stylist worked for eight days while showing symptoms.



I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are on this? I think we're going to see a lot more stuff like this in the near future.

I think it is one thing to go back to work, I think it's another if you go to work knowing you have symptoms."


Well of course... Anyone with a lick of sense should it is completely reckless and criminal to take a possible lethal illness to a place where people will be directly infected in All likely hood. YES CERTAINLY any individual doing such a despicable act with fore knowledge should be held responsible, up to and including prison or jail time.

a reply to: JAGStorm

well at least in jail they dont have to worry about getting food or paying rent right?

Well yea-but... they are infectious there too. But it's damn wrong for them to infect knowingly or even suspecting they have the virus....

Regardless the stylist will not be sued or prosecuted because no one forced the people to come get a hair cut. And they could had wore mask themselves,then when getting home washed their hands and hair and clothes.

Your right... it seems so just wrong

a reply to: JAGStorm

Oh, one more thing...if someone is infected, gets sick or dies...the court will look at their age, comorbidities, and any potential earnings loss.

IOW, if someone is old and has underlying comorbidities...the court won't find in their favor -- the blame will mostly be on them. That's why I scoff when people suddenly pretend to care about old people and those with comorbidities dying with COVID as a contributing factor.

250,000 people a year die from medical errors. It's said to be the true third leading cause of death. And neither the people nor the courts care when it happens to the elderly and those who have comorbidities. It's almost impossible to even get a lawyer to take a case, like that.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I guess this points to the question of where individual rights begin and end.

We usually say they end at the skin. However, COVID isn't convenient like that.

If we were more rational, and less divided by political stupidity, we could probably all agree that, hey, in a pandemic of a highly communicable disease, there may be some steps we need to take for a while.

It's not just a question of how many people will die. It also regards how many people will have to be hospitalized and how many people will have life long medical issues. At least in my mind.

a reply to: JAGStorm

If you are positive for Corona, Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Flu, Hepi, etc., AND KNOW IT, you can be sued for exposing yourself to other humans, who catch the disease from you.

Explained nicely by legal experts, several times over the past 2 months.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I missed the part about anyone taking a possible lethal illness somewhere where they could give it to others.

You do realize that under the right circumstances *any* illness could possibly be lethal to someone else, right?

Sheesh, under the right circumstances, my otherwise innocent peanut butter sandwich could kill. Should I be jailed for my lunch now too?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JAGStorm

I guess this points to the question of where individual rights begin and end.

We usually say they end at the skin. However, COVID isn't convenient like that.

If we were more rational, and less divided by political stupidity, we could probably all agree that, hey, in a pandemic of a highly communicable disease, there may be some steps we need to take for a while.

It's not just a question of how many people will die. It also regards how many people will have to be hospitalized and how many people will have life long medical issues. At least in my mind.

Time to hold Mother Nature accountable for making nasty virus.

Let us know how that works out for ya.....

Might as well scream at the wind to stop blowing.


People really need to get over themselves.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
If someone gets sick and has to quarantine, possibly lose income, is that stylist responsible?

She should absolutely not be liable, no how, no way.

Of course, in this insane society, she probably will receive the death penalty for daring to want to provide for her children. The nerve!

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah, nice fallacious argument. DId I say anything about holding nature accountable? Har, har. Nope.

I agree that people really need to get over themselves though. 100%

Charity starts at home; physician, heal yourself. Etc. etc.

If someone gets sick and has to quarantine, possibly lose income, is that stylist responsible?

Are we able to hold the government accountable for all the lost income for every single person who lost because of the quarantine orders?

If not, why are they special? And if not, why are we suddenly able to take out our wrath on the private sector?

So now we can sue people who get us sick? Awesome. That's just what the USA needs. More frickin lawsuits.

Guarantee if this gets someone money you'll see lawsuits for flu, cold, diarrhea, warts, anything transmissible.

a reply to: jjkenobi

"I never had jock itch until I went to that public pool!"

originally posted by: Xtrozero
We are not talking about something like hepatitis here... it is about 4 weeks max from start to finish, and normally a lot less than that.

Okay. It doesn't rally change my position, people still go to work with highly contagious diseases all the time.

a reply to: jjkenobi
Google up Typhoid Mary and red.

Nah, I highly doubt there was any malicious intent, the current employment state makes it much more likely that someone desperately needed to remain employed & earning an income. So they can toss any liability suits right out the window. IMO, the lack of maliciousness should void 'em as it is.