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

originally posted by: Nyiah
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.

Let's take Corona out of it since that is too heated.

A stylist gardened all day and got poison ivy.
She didn't know and went to work thinking it was just an eczema flareup. No malicious intent, and she didn't think
she was contagious.

She washed your hair and got poison ivy on your neck and face and you are highly allergic .....

No liability right...........

a reply to: JAGStorm

Can you transmit the poison ivy reaction by skin contact? I thought it was a hyperallergic reaction to the plant.

Wow, Today I Learned ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

So? Mother Nature is not the actual producer of the virus and the root cause? Unless there is malicious intent, how are anyones rights violated by simply catching a contagious natural disease? You can choose to stay home. But public, is well... public.

a reply to: JAGStorm

You send your son to camp with a peanut butter sandwich. He shares with another kid who happens to deathly allergic to ground nuts. Your kid didn't know. You should be liable, right? How dare you send your son to camp with a dangerous lunch, even if no one informed you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I've gotten it from petting my dog. The oil can stay active on surfaces and cause blistering.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JAGStorm

Can you transmit the poison ivy reaction by skin contact? I thought it was a hyperallergic reaction to the plant.

Wow, Today I Learned ...

Yes through the sap.
parade.com...

The invisible sap can remain active on your clothes, shoes, tools or pet—anywhere it lands—for several months. If it’s on your body, and you don’t wash it off right away, but sit down somewhere, you can re-expose yourself by touching that spot weeks later.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
Unless the business you go to is the only human contact you have within the incubation period and you test everyone after every contact with another person or as we have learned animals as well you don’t know where you got sick.

More scare tactics.

Let's assume, they can prove that is where a person got it.
Let's say elderly lady literally only left house once in a month, to get her hair done and got it there.

You can't prove it. There is no way to prove this hypothetical elderly lady did not come into contact with another person or surface with the virus on here way to the salon. Impossible to prove. Your hypothetical is no possible, especially as "proof".

a reply to: JAGStorm

Jesus.

Apropos of nothing, thanks for the PSA, LOL.

a reply to: panoz77

The burden of proof would be on the damaged party, if I'm not mistaken.

2nd

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Nyiah
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.

Let's take Corona out of it since that is too heated.

A stylist gardened all day and got poison ivy.
She didn't know and went to work thinking it was just an eczema flareup. No malicious intent, and she didn't think
she was contagious.

She washed your hair and got poison ivy on your neck and face and you are highly allergic .....

No liability right...........

JAG, don't be a dumbass, I have an husband with three allergies, one of which can kill him -- bees. And we still stop off at our closest local apiary and buy honey from them. The beekeeper is NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE if one of his bees stings hubs and triggers a reaction (which would be epi-pen & hospitalization level severe, if he doesn't die before the ambulance arrives)

So, no, not liable in this context. And please stuff it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77

The burden of proof would be on the damaged party, if I'm not mistaken.

2nd

Explain, if the elderly lady is claiming the hair dresser is the only person who could have transmitted the virus, the elderly lady would have to show evidence how that claim is true and convince a jury. The defense would then ask questions to refute her "proof".

a reply to: Nyiah

Getting stung by a bee versus getting a highly infectious disease by a SYMPTOMATIC worker is completely different.

You stuff it.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Nyiah

Getting stung by a bee versus getting a highly infectious disease by a SYMPTOMATIC worker is completely different.

You stuff it.

I don't think so, honey. You went the allergy route first.

His other allergies include penicillin and dairy. Penicillin will make him swell like a wheezing balloon, and dairy will just make him wheeze and feel utterly terrible when ingested. Topically, both make him welt right up like nobody's business. In both of THOSE topical contexts, nobody's responsible in his opinion for cross-contamination either, because s# happens.

He's really strongly against people who want to bubble-wrap the world for the allergic because it places undue and unwarranted responsibility on people those allergies don't impact. In his view, it's not your responsibility to "watch out" for him, and he's not going to be nice about the imposition being saddled on others and finds people who force it to be vile. But that's a discussion for another thread.

a reply to: Nyiah

Listen toots, this isn't about your fragile hubs. Yes if he is allergic HE has the choice to avoid or not avoid apiary.
A person getting a haircut wouldn't think they could get poison ivy from there.

There is probably the assumption that
workers that have Covid symptoms would stay home! I think that is a reasonable assumption.

This is about people showing symptoms and most likely passing this highly infectious disease onto others. How many times have we heard if you are sick, stay home.
My guess is that most business now say, if you are sick or have symptoms stay home.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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

I'm kind of agreeing with you in this is far from a long duration contagious disease that we manage already.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Directly from the White House...........

www.whitehouse.gov...

PEOPLE WHO FEEL SICK SHOULD STAY HOME
Do not go to work or school.
Contact and follow the advice of your medical provider

I didn't bold or highlight this, they did

PEOPLE WHO FEEL SICK SHOULD STAY HOME

And this:

Monitor workforce for indicative symptoms. Do not allow symptomatic people to physically return to work until cleared by a medical provider.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm kind of agreeing with you in this is far from a long duration contagious disease that we manage already.

Ah, gotcha.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Nyiah

Listen toots, this isn't about your fragile hubs. Yes if he is allergic HE has the choice to avoid or not avoid apiary.
A person getting a haircut wouldn't think they could get poison ivy from there.

There is probably the assumption that
workers that have Covid symptoms would stay home! I think that is a reasonable assumption.

This is about people showing symptoms and most likely passing this highly infectious disease onto others. How many times have we heard if you are sick, stay home.
My guess is that most business now say, if you are sick or have symptoms stay home.

No sh# Sherlock, either avoid or mitigate if you're vulnerable, imagine that! It's the whole damn point with "Figure it out yourself" with covid. It also works for most situations in life, if not all of them, pretty damn well when people grow up and are responsible for themselves. Instead of heaping that responsibility on others & expecting fawning concern in return.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77

The burden of proof would be on the damaged party, if I'm not mistaken.

2nd

Explain, if the elderly lady is claiming the hair dresser is the only person who could have transmitted the virus, the elderly lady would have to show evidence how that claim is true and convince a jury. The defense would then ask questions to refute her "proof".

Indeed.

So the injured party would have to prove the source of her injury.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Anyone who goes anywhere could get anything. That's the point.

You cannot expect the entire world to be constantly level-4 BioLab sanitary, and heck, the bug may have leaked its way out of a facility with that level of bio-containment, but sure ... let's expect one poor little hairstylist to manage what trained lab workers at a level 4 biocontainment facility apparently couldn't and sue here when it surprisingly doesn't happen.