When will Pfizer et. al. be liable for injuries caused by the COVID-19 vaccine? According to the PREP act, the companies developing and administering the COVID-19 vaccines cannot be sued for unintentional injuries resulting from the vaccine. I have seen enough commercials advertising class action lawsuits for other wonder drugs that this is making me hesitant to get the vaccine. It's bad enough to suffer some horrible side effect, but not even being able to seek compensation is just the last straw. My pulmonologist believes that these protections for Pfizer et. al. only last until these vaccines get full FDA approval; once they're no longer on emergency use approval they will be open to lawsuits. Is he correct? (I'm not anti-vax like Alex Jones. I get my flu shot every year. Please don't assume anything.)
The other answers have addressed the letter of the question you asked, but I wanted to correct a misconception in your question statement: ... It's bad enough to suffer some horrible side effect, but not even being able to seek compensation is just the last straw. Note that under the PREP Act, you can seek compensation from the government if you are injured by a covered vaccine, including (at this time) a COVID-19 vaccine: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of covered countermeasures identified in and administered or used under a PREP Act declaration. The CICP also may provide benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of such covered countermeasures. The PREP Act declaration for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 states that the covered countermeasures are: any antiviral, any drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, any respiratory protective device, or any vaccine manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured: a. to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure COVID–19, or the transmission of SARS–CoV–2 or a virus mutating therefrom; or b. to limit the harm that COVID–19, or the transmission of SARS–CoV–2 or a virus mutating therefrom, might otherwise cause; So it is incorrect to say that you would be unable to seek compensation if you were injured by Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. You would just have to seek compensation from the government rather than suing Pfizer. As noted in the other answers, this protection under the PREP Act will lapse by October 1, 2024. However, it is also entirely plausible that this vaccine will be recommended on a regular basis going forward, in which case it would end up being covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program instead. This program is designed to protect manufacturers of vaccines that are routinely administered to children and pregnant women, the idea being that the threat of costly lawsuits might otherwise dissuade manufacturers from making such vaccines. Your seasonal flu shot, for example, is covered under this program; if you sustained an injury from that shot, you would be able to file a claim for benefits under this program. If we end up in a situation where COVID-19 vaccines are required regularly for most people (which seems entirely plausible at this point), then I would wager that they would end up being folded into this program.
Clauses (a) and (c) are potentially relevant. You have to look in the Rules &amp; Regulations to see what exceptions are permitted. Although firearms and especially shotgun shells are of a "dangerous, flammable or explosive character", it is reasonable to believe that when stored properly, they do not unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion, and would not be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. On the latter point, you could ask any responsible insurance company if they would consider such shells to be hazardous. While in ordinary language simple possession of a firearm is not a threat of violence, the wording of clause (c) is open to a wider interpretation, since acts considered to be a threat of violence include displaying or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate others. The fact is that many people are alarmed by the simple existence of a weapon, so simply possessing a weapon could be interpreted as a "threat" in this special sense. Since you are not in the position of having signed the lease and now need to deal with the consequences of this clause, the simplest solution is to explain your interest, and ask them if having your gear in your apartment would be a violation of the lease. Be really clear about this and get it in writing in some form, if they say "no problem". Then either pick a different place, pick a different hobby, or find a separate storage facility.
Not at all. A US business always had the authority to require employees to be vaccinated before entering the workplace, except if a valid state law prohibits this. The EEOC has confirmed that none of the Federal laws which it enforces prevent such a requirement. The proposed mandate under the OSHA Act would merely have required a business subject to the mandate to do what it had the right to do anyway. Even if it is held that the US Federal Government does not have constitutional authority to impose such a mandate, that would not in any way impair any business which chooses to do so from imposing such a requirement on its employees, subject to the requirements under the ADA and the Civil Rights act to offer reasonable accommodations for sincere religious objections, and for disabilities that would interfere with accepting vaccination. Businesses generally are not &quot;covered entities&quot; under HIPPA, and so can ask employees for health information such as a vaccination record, if they choose to. Or they can choose to trust an employee's word on the matter.
If at the time of a claim, the valuation is found to be incorrect (too low = underinsured) the insurer may avoid the claim or apply an averaging clause, effectively meaning they pay less than they would if you had valued the item(s) correctly and paid a higher premium as a result. This is I believe termed a qualifying misrepresentation. A qualifying misrepresentation is the consumer's &quot;misrepresentation for which the insurer has a remedy against the consumer&quot; (s4 Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012). This is available when the consumer misrepresented a fact deliberately or recklessly, or carelessly (s5 CIDRA). s5 (4) It is for the insurer to show that a qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless. (5) But it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown— (a) that the consumer had the knowledge of a reasonable consumer, and (b) that the consumer knew that a matter about which the insurer asked a clear and specific question was relevant to the insurer. If a qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, the remedy is that &quot;the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, and need not return any of the premiums paid, except to the extent (if any) that it would be unfair to the consumer to retain them.&quot; (Schedule 1 CIDRA). At the time of application for or renewal or mid-term adjustment of a policy, the consumer must take reasonable care to answer the insurer's questions. Including what is the value at that time (not 15 years ago). s3 Reasonable care (1)Whether or not a consumer has taken reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation is to be determined in the light of all the relevant circumstances. (2)The following are examples of things which may need to be taken into account in making a determination under subsection (1)— (a)the type of consumer insurance contract in question, and its target market, (b)any relevant explanatory material or publicity produced or authorised by the insurer, (c)how clear, and how specific, the insurer's questions were, (d)in the case of a failure to respond to the insurer's questions in connection with the renewal or variation of a consumer insurance contract, how clearly the insurer communicated the importance of answering those questions (or the possible consequences of failing to do so), (e)whether or not an agent was acting for the consumer. (3)The standard of care required is that of a reasonable consumer: but this is subject to subsections (4) and (5). (4)If the insurer was, or ought to have been, aware of any particular characteristics or circumstances of the actual consumer, those are to be taken into account. Necessarily the Financial Ombudsman makes its findings on a case-by-case basis. The Ombudsman corresponds with both parties about who said what when. If this case hinges on an insurer's question, the Ombudsman reads the question to determine if it was a clear question. The Ombudsman examines the evidence - letters, phone call recordings, emails, websites. A few of the case studies at the link you supplied involve changes to property or policy over time. https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/data-insight/insight/insight-in-depth-underinsurance-misrepresentation-non-disclosure Case study 3: 15 years ago the consumer got cover for a watch valued at the time at £1,500; when she was asked at renewal times if she wanted to make any changes to her claim limit she said she didn't (and presumably paid for the policy on that basis). Years later she lost the watch; at the time of her claim it was valued at £5,000 and the insurer refused to offer her more than £1,500. The consumer complained she should have been offered more - the Ombudsman disagreed. Case study 5: there was no evidence to suggest the consumer knew that the previous owner of her car had added alloy wheels. The fact that the insurer's expert was able to spot the alloys was not a reasonable argument to &quot;avoid&quot; the policy on the grounds that the consumer claimed the car had not been modified in any way. The Ombudsman disagreed with the insurer's position that the consumer knew or didn't care that the information she provided was wrong. Case study 6: the consumer replaced his VW Polo with a VW Golf and contacted his insurer to make a mid-term adjustment. The insurer asked him if the VW Golf had been modified in any way from the manufacturer's original specification, for example with alloy or sports wheels. He said no, it hadn't been modified in any way at all. Subsequently he made a claim on the grounds his car was stolen; he told the insurer that the car had sports wheels fitted when he bought it that he thought added a minimum of £1,000 to its value. The insurer decided to &quot;avoid&quot; the policy because the consumer deliberately misrepresented the car had been modified. The Ombudsman agreed with the insurer that the policy could be &quot;avoided&quot;. Buildings, contents, vehicle and jewelry policies tend to be provided on an annual basis and (among other things) what it could cost to replace them at application or renewal time. What it was worth 15 years ago is irrelevant (and might well be too little or too much). It is also unclear (to me) who is responsible for the valuation with buildings insurance. The consumer is responsible for taking &quot;reasonable care&quot; about it. If you consider car insurance. The valuation of a car is typically determined by the insurer using a &quot;glass&quot; guide. A consumer might reasonably expect something similar to apply for building insurance based on property values. Buildings insurance providers ask &quot;how much it would cost if you had to rebuild your home?&quot; They don't ask how much you could sell your home for. Some providers suggest you could hire a residential property surveyor or use their 'calculator' or 'comparison tool'. Expensive jewelry: if you bought it recently then have you got a receipt? If you haven't got a receipt then get it professionally valued. Car insurance: you answer the insurer's questions about your car, e.g. make, year of manufacture, transmission, modifications, the insurer puts your car into one of 50 insurance groups that are a factor insurers use to price your policy. Some providers go into much detail about this kind of thing.
All employees in Australia are covered by state-based Worker’s Compensation insurance. This is the workers’ guide for NSW. In theory, your loss of income and medical expenses should be claimable. However, as it seems that you did not follow the required procedures, in practice, you may find it a bureaucratic nightmare. First, you needed to have been seen by a registered Australian doctor and receive a Workers Compensation certificate to get the ball rolling. Do you have evidence that the injury occurred at work? Second, benefits are suspended if you leave the country. There may be exemptions for temporary workers but I am unaware of them. Contact the authority responsible for workers compensation in the state you were injured.
The COVID restrictions are new enough that there are few court decisions on how to interpret them. There are frequent requests for court injunctions seeking temporary relief. Some pass, some are denied. The website might accuse locations listed there of breaking the restrictions. Making such an accusation in public sounds like a very bad idea, especially if there is no solid documentation. But the aggrieved party would be any location falsely listed. The site may or may not be hosted in Germany. If it is not, it becomes a really interesting question which law applies. You might inform the authorities, but beyond that, forget it.
No. It would not meet the criteria for &quot;unlawful act manslaughter&quot; per the CPS Guide for Crown Prosecutors: The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted. This is because there's no unbroken chain of causation. Let's walk through each element. 1. An unlawful and dangerous act Unlawful Clearly, the act was unlawful — leaving his home without reasonable excuse contrary to the relevant regulations. Dangerous This is an objective test. The test is whether all sober and reasonable people recognised its danger, based solely on their observation of Cummings' conduct during the act. (DPP v Newbury (Neil) [1977] Crim. L.R. 359). It seems the objective test is met - as the risk of harm only has to be &quot;some&quot; risk of harm, and you could argue if he had coronavirus he was putting other members of the public at risk, even if that risk was slight. 2. Causation The prosecution must establish that the unlawful act was a cause of the death without an &quot;intervening act&quot; to break the chain of causation (R v Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151). It will be impossible to prove such a chain of causation in this case, therefore any attempted prosecution will likely prove unsuccessful. There is no direct, unbroken link between what he did and someone dying of coronavirus.
Can you be liable for damages? Under Tort Law, yes. Let's assume someone developed a virus based on your code. The virus caused millions of dollars of damage. The plaintiff (software vendor) can argue that: You have a Duty of Care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbor Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) (UK) The concept of Duty of Care is also found in U.S. law, for example in MacPerson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), which established that negligence does not require a contract. Breach of Duty: A reasonable person can foresee that the "proof of concept" can cause harm. The act of releasing code, therefore, falls short of the expected standard. If you are a IT professional, it is going to be difficult to defend this point. There is a causation relationship between your code release and the resulted damage. You are liable for negligence. Damage: It is likely that users will sue the software vendor for their loses. The software vendor will then sue you, since because of you, the software vendor has to compensate to its customers. This, of course, depends on what exactly did you release to the public. For example, if significant effort is needed to convert your "proof of concept" to an actual exploit, and you have provided a workaround to avoid this vulnerability, you may defend yourself by arguing that the cause and effect linkage is too remote. So I must keep the report private? What if the software is open source? Not really. You should take reasonable measure to ensure that your "proof of concept" is not an actual exploit, and a hacker needs considerable time to develop a functioning malicious software. CVE is a platform where vulnerabilities are publicly shared. What if you have given the vendor reasonable time to fix the vulnerability? It does not matter (to you) if time has been given for the vendor to fix the vulnerability. It does matter for the vendor, because if something happens later, the vendor is liable for knowing the problem well in advance and have not allocated the appropriate resources to correct the problem. To demonstrate a vulnerability exist does not require instruction of how to utilize this vulnerability. For example you can record a video showing the effects of the hack. Here (Wayback Machine; original link is dead) is an interesting read about Motorola taking matters into their own hands after they discovered a vulnerability on the Xerox CP-V system and Xerox did not patch the problem.