Posted on 12/22/2021 6:34:42 AM PST by artichokegrower
A California court has upheld the lawsuit of a woman who claims she got COVID while working at a candy factory, and passed it on to her 72-year-old husband, who later died of the virus.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The woman contracted COVID Did she get it at her workplace? Did she get it at the many other places she frequented or the people she interacted with? Did her husband get it from her? Did her husband die from COVID or other issues?
It will all go back to the employer because they have the money.
Did the brits screw up? Surely they meant “’murdered’ by the virus”.
Wait til people start suing employers for mandated jab injuries.
No rule of law in the UK.
I wonder how she can prove she got it there and not at any other place she may have stopped for any reason, no matter how trivial.
“I didn’t go ANYWHERE but work and home!”
And church
And the grocery store
and to get my hair cut
and to a wedding, but it was small and outdoors, and the food was under a tent...etc
I guess the only place she breathed air was at work?
This does sound like a “jobs” program for tort lawyers though....
And never pushed that nasty button at the gas pump to put gas in her car to get to work.
“? Did she get it at the many other places she frequented “
Was she vaccinated by some company policy?
Can she sue the vaccine company if she was vaccinated for a defected product?
How does she prove she got COVID on the job and not from somewhere else?
This will be the Final Nail in the coffin for businesses in California if allowed to stand.
GET OUT while you can!!
The National Labor Relations Board already ruled that employers are liable for vaccine related injuries. So Brandon mandates the vax and employers are on the hook if things go wrong.
When one gets covid it does not seem feasible to tell where or who they got it from. With somebody who travels little we might have a rough guess but that’s about it. Unlike cases where one gets an std during a time they had only one partner who deceived one into believing they did not have it, it makes no sense to try to sue someone for getting it. Even in the std case one must reasonably show they really only had the one partner. How much harder it is to show they really only breathed the same air those at their work and shared no air with people at a gas station etc.
Not a current priority of the plaintiff’s bar, I’d wager.
And crap like this is why my workplace still has mask mandates indoors; with or without shots and boosters.
I’ve dubbed this, “Lawyer Food.”
(No offense to the good FR lawyers here, of course)
In the end there is no way she can PROVE she contracted Covid at her worksite. Matilde Ek and her daughters are looking for a payout from a shiftless, sympathetic jury that probably doesn’t work or pay taxes.
Were I on the defense side I’d be requiring that she show she did HER due diligence with regard to spacing, masks, cutting down on unnecessary contacts while shopping, etc. I’d ask her where she shopped, for instance, and then go back and subpoena store videos, testimony from store clerks, neighbors, etc.
I’d also be asking her to produce receipts for things she bought like hand sanitizers, application alcohol for sprays, masks, gloves and all the rest - since she was SO concerned about giving it to her retired restaurant server husband......
Great. I hope this ends up in court. The plaintiff will have to prove that the virus is transmissible. It may not be transmissible. It may be that, like others, she and her husband were exposed to the same food, air, or environmental toxin.
Only in Kommiefornia. Normal judges would toss this crap in a heartbeat, but if you’re a pinko-commie idiot judge in Kommiefornia it’s all good. Eat the rich!
There is an upside to this, though. If employers can be sued for an alleged transmission of COVID in the workplace, there is no reason in the world for any employers to bring staff back to the workplace after they've demonstrated for more than a year and a half that they can do their work from home.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m thinking in a civil suit she may not have to PROVE anything. She may only need to demonstrate — to the satisfaction of a majority of the jurors — that the employer was somehow negligent in not imposing strict protective measures in the workplace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.