eg. Texas Laws relating to Liability of Health Authorities in these situations (government)
Does the local health authority have any liability in civil court for
losses that persons or businesses suffer because of an order
imposing control measures?
Though the state has had little opportunity to use most of these laws,
if the health authority follows the procedures required by state law, the
authority’s liability should be nonexistent or nominal. The principle of
official immunity will protect governmental officials from lawsuit and
liability in many cases. Protection from liability is one of the important
reasons why the local health authority should ensure that he or she is
properly appointed as described above.
Two laws passed in 2003 may protect a health authority — a “state officer”
— from civil liability arising from the issuance of control measure orders
during an emergency or disaster.
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, §79.003, Disaster Assistance, was
enacted in Senate Bill 513 (Chapter 58, 78th Leg., 2003). It provides
immunity from civil liability for an act or omission when a person is
giving care, assistance, or advice with respect to the management of an
incident that is a man-made or natural disaster that threatens individuals,
property, or the environment and in which the care, assistance, or advice
is provided at the request of local, state, or federal agencies. The act
does not apply to persons who expect or receive compensation from, or
on behalf of, the recipient of the care, assistance, or advice in excess of
reimbursement for expenses. It also does not apply to reckless conduct or
intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct. A health authority issuing control
measure orders may be considered to be involved in “management of an
incident” and therefore covered by this provision.
Government Code, §421.061, Civil Liability, was enacted in House Bill 9
concerning homeland security. It pertains to officers or employees of state
or local agencies who are performing homeland security activities
or volunteers performing homeland security activities at the request or
under the direction of officers or employees of state or local agencies.
The act authorizes persons in either of those capacities to be considered
members of the state military forces and provides immunity from civil
liability while they are performing homeland security activities. For the
act to apply, the activity must be under the procedures or circumstances
described in the governor’s homeland security strategy and must be within
the course and scope of the person’s authority. The act does not apply to
willful or wanton negligence, conscious indifference, or reckless disregard
for the safety of others. Until the governor’s homeland security strategy is
issued, it is not yet clear what activities will be covered or whether health
authorities would be considered officers of the state under this provision.
Local health authorities should consult with the authority’s city or
county attorney on the protections within state law, including the Local
Government Code, and case law on local government liability and
immunity if more specific information is needed.
On the Other Side of the Equation. LIABILITY for Ignoring that Government Order.
(Too many damned jurisdictions to note here.)
A law firms initial take on the matter (USA)
Thinking about ignoring your state or local COVID-19 shutdown orders? Think again. Social-distance measures may create a new source of liability for businesses operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection-based litigation is normally limited to businesses operating in the healthcare sector. But, social-distancing measures to stop the spread of infection may expand that litigation to other sectors.
State and local governments across the country are taking extraordinary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19, a novel coronavirus that can cause life-threatening respiratory illness. Those measures encourage and even mandate “social distance” between people to limit physical transmission of the virus.
Hard-hit states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California have been aggressive in their responses, shuttering businesses, confining people to their homes, and requiring people to stay six feet apart. Common mandates include: quarantines, business and school closures, stay-home orders, curfews, travel restrictions, occupancy limits and physical-distance mandates, among other things.
Meanwhile, federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), have been issuing extensive guidance on how to mitigate the spread of the virus.
What does this mean for businesses looking to minimize their liability? In many states, violation of a law can constitute “negligence per se.” What that means is that the law sets the standard of care, not the jury. To establish negligence, the plaintiff only needs to convince the jury that the defendant violated the law, i.e., the “stay-home” order. This essentially relieves a plaintiff from the burden of having to prove that the defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances. The court can adopt a law, such as a “stay-home” order, as the standard of care where the purpose of that law is:
- to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and;
- to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and;
- to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and;
- to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 286.
https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/resources-alerts-Is-Violation-of-a-COVID-19-Order-the-Basis-For-Civil-Liability.html