[Paal Gulli]

Since these employers do not enjoy the same immunity to civil prosecution as the makers of the Fauci Flu clot shots do, and because we know the clot shots are killing more people than all the real vaccines yet created combined, doesn't that lend the possibility that Hershey (et Al) could be held liable for death and injury sustained by employees from a shot they were forced to take against their will and better judgement?

[flamberge]

doesn't that lend the possibility that Hershey (et Al) could be held liable for death and injury sustained by employees...

If we still operated under a rule-of-law that would indeed be a possibility.

But rule-of-law has been abandoned for quite some time now. We have pretense-of-law instead.

I do not expect any major corporation will ever be held liable in a court of law for deaths or injuries caused by the mRNA treatments which they "mandated" as a condition of employment.

There aren't enough assets in the entire national economy to pay for the actual damages caused by the "mandates". So, damages won't be paid. Cases will be postponed or appealed for decades until the original plaintiffs have died from old age. Cases will be dismissed because the plaintiffs "have no standing". Laws will be changed to make the corporations exempt from liabilities and those exemptions will be retroactive.

There may be vengeance (not justice) served up by the surviving family and relatives of the victims to a few unfortunate executives or managers. It will change outcomes only in a minor way.

My guess is that "mandates" will be quietly abandoned in the face of labor shortages, inflation, supply-chain interruptions, and war.