Self-quarantine of neighbor broken, if infected, can I sue (civil) Hopefully this is an allowed question. If not, I will delete. My neighbor returned from overseas recently (if necessary for answering, Somalia). How she managed it, I don't know, or care. They are supposed to Self-Quarantine for 14-days. I literally ran into her at the grocery store (cart to cart) where she was not masked. If I am infected (with COVID) and name her as a possible vector, and she is positive as well, what are my options, legally, assuming it came from her to me, and not me to her?
TL:DR Not really possible, no This is from the website of Allen Allen Allen &amp; Allen, a Virginia-based legal firm. (NOTE I will not be including links within the quotes, you may view their website for more information.) In order to prevail in a personal injury lawsuit arising from the Coronavirus, the plaintiff will need to establish: (1) that the wrongdoer had a legal duty to the plaintiff (i.e., that the wrongdoer had a responsibility not to expose the plaintiff to the Coronavirus); (2) that the wrongdoer breached their legal duty; (3) that the wrongdoer’s actions caused the plaintiff to get sick; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages (i.e., illness, medical expenses, lost wages or death). First, there is Legal Duty, which they show as: In Virginia, every person has a duty to exercise due care to avoid injuring others. The scope of the duty varies with the circumstances of each case, but as a general rule, everyone owes a duty to every person within reach of their conduct. This duty “arises from that basic and necessary regulation of civilization which forbids any person because of his own convenience, to recklessly, heedlessly or carelessly injure another.“ Before imposing liability against a defendant, the court will examine whether the defendant knew, or should have known, that his conduct placed others at risk of harm. Virginia courts have imposed liability against a farmer who allowed his cow to wander into traffic (which caused a crash) and a manufacturer whose employees wore their work clothes home (which exposed their family members to asbestos fibers and caused them to develop asbestos-related diseases). Similarly, any person who knows that they have the Coronavirus and exposes others to it could, in theory, be held liable. Next, we have causation, which would be the major sticking point. Under Virginia law, plaintiffs are required to prove that the defendant caused their injury. In Coronavirus cases, if the plaintiff cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that it is more likely than not) that the defendant was the source of the disease, the plaintiff will not prevail at trial. Virginia courts allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against defendants who caused them to become sick or develop disease. Unlike the cases described above, where the source of the exposure was known and easily determined, proving causation in Coronavirus cases is challenging because an individual who is exposed to the virus might not develop symptoms for up to two weeks, and the Coronavirus can survive on surfaces for several days. Therefore, a plaintiff who did not practice social distancing or limit his or her exposure to others could find it difficult to establish that the defendant was the source of the virus. I have left out two example cases that they show within the above paragraphs, for brevity. Both are related to passing AIDS from an HIV-positive person to a healthy person. Finally, they talk about did the person know they have COVID-19 (positive screening for the virus) and did they take reasonable precautions: In litigation arising from the COVID-19, courts will consider whether the defendant knew or should have known that they had the virus, and whether they knew or should have known that they would (or could) spread it to others. Certainly, anyone who intentionally and deliberately spreads the virus to others could be held liable and might face criminal penalties, as well. In some cases, individuals who have been officially diagnosed with the virus could potentially be held liable if they do not take reasonable steps to prevent spreading it to others. However, it is unlikely that a court would impose liability against any person who was not officially diagnosed with COVID-19. It is also unlikely that a court would impose liability against individuals who take reasonable steps to prevent spreading the virus to others. So, in my example from my question, if I don't know that my neighbor was diagnosed, or more importantly, if they don't know, then the case would go nowhere. If they received notification of a positive result of a test AND they went out shopping and did not wear a mask, then PERHAPS this requirement would be met. However, the real sticking point here is number 2, causation. I would have to prove that I caught the virus from that person and not from any other people I may have come into contact with. So, while I am not a lawyer, I can understand that it would be next to impossible to prevail with this lawsuit, unless I were able to show that I came into close proximity with only one person, and that that person has the virus, and knew they had the virus, and purposefully did not use precautions to protect others. That seems an awful lot to overcome.
In addition to the general considerations of (1) who is allowed to use non-deadly physical force to maintain order in a shop (which I think that one could do if "deputized" by the property owner or to protect the property of another as well), and (2) the use of non-deadly physical force to make a citizen's arrest (which many of these scenarios would justify as the disorder would be a crime if committed by an adult), (3) I suspect that there is also some point at which a bystander may intervene to prevent harms associated with an unsupervised minor being at large and in need of supervision. Generally speaking, intervention with the minimum reasonable non-deadly physical force to prevent property damage, or an assault, or a threat, is going to be permissible. As to the third reason: for a mentally normal ten-year-old that might be a stretch; for a four-year-old or a clearly impaired older child it might not. One could approach the child, say, "where's your mom or dad", "do you have a babysitter or sibling around?", "what is your name?", or "are you lost?" and detain the child until a satisfactory answer is provided or a suitable authority arrives, to prevent the problem of a child being lost, abducted or hurt by the child's own actions. It would be quite hard for a parent, guardian or babysitter to complain about this kind of conduct when the child was unsupervised and is released as soon as you confirm that this really is a responsible adult or older minor who is responsible for the child. It would be important in doing so to not secret away or isolate the child, to try to determine the location of the child's caretaker, to refrain from doing anything that would harm the child, and to seek assistance from an authority within a reasonable time. Typically, if no caretaker appeared, a cop would come and the cop would oversee the situation until a social worker could come. For example, Colorado has the following statute that would apply once a cop arrived (omitting lengthy provisions that apply to newborn children): § 19-3-401. Taking children into custody (1) A child may be taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without order of the court: (a) When the child is abandoned, lost, or seriously endangered in such child's surroundings or seriously endangers others and immediate removal appears to be necessary for such child's protection or the protection of others; (b) When there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child has run away or escaped from such child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian and the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian has not made a report to a law enforcement agency that the child has run away from home; . . . (1.3) A child shall be taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without order of the court when there are reasonable grounds to believe the child has run away from the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian and the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian has made a report to a law enforcement agency that the child has run away from home. (1.5) An emergency exists and a child is seriously endangered as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section whenever the safety or well-being of a child is immediately at issue and there is no other reasonable way to protect the child without removing the child from the child's home. If such an emergency exists, a child shall be removed from such child's home and placed in protective custody regardless of whether reasonable efforts to preserve the family have been made. (2) The taking of a child into temporary custody under this section shall not be deemed an arrest, nor shall it constitute a police record. A child is considered neglected or dependent under circumstances including the following (provisions related to drug or alcohol abuse by parents omitted): § 19-3-102. Neglected or dependent child (1) A child is neglected or dependent if: (a) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian has abandoned the child or has subjected him or her to mistreatment or abuse or a parent, guardian, or legal custodian has suffered or allowed another to mistreat or abuse the child without taking lawful means to stop such mistreatment or abuse and prevent it from recurring; (b) The child lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (c) The child's environment is injurious to his or her welfare; (d) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for his or her health, guidance, or well-being; (e) The child is homeless, without proper care, or not domiciled with his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian through no fault of such parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (f) The child has run away from home or is otherwise beyond the control of his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian; I don't have easily at hand legal authority authorizing a third-party who is not a law enforcement officer to take custody of a dependent or neglected child until a law enforcement officer arrives, but I strongly suspect from the context that this is allowed either under common law, or a statute that I have not located, or some legal fiction (e.g., that the citizen is implicitly deputized by the law enforcement officer after the fact), or simply as a matter of custom and ordinary practice not codified in any authoritative legal source.
What happens is the same as if you were an employee in the office, staying with the company for another few years. You are an agent for the company, and everything you do is as if the company was doing it (except for extreme circumstances). A company employee broke your laptop. It's the company's problem. They should have insurance for this kind of thing. And they told you to work from home, so if something happened because you are at home, that's the company's problem as well. It could be different if your company had told their employees not to have any fluids anywhere near their computers, and you had acted against this. Or my company doesn't allow me to take my works computer with me on a holiday; if I did without explicit permission and it got damaged, that would be my problem.
You've got four cases there with four different reasons for substantial delays: In the case of the Aurora theater shooting, the shooter pled not guilty by reason of insanity. There's no doubt about who did it, but doubt was raised about the mental status of the shooter. Murder is not a strict liability crime, so the ability of the defendant to form the intent to commit the crime is relevant. In the case of the Charleston church shooting, the defendant was twice evaluated for competence to stand trial. Again, no doubt about who did it, but most if not all jurisdictions require a defendant to be sufficiently sane to participate in their defense. In the case of the Parkland shooting, the initial delay was confusion over who the defense lawyer would be. Florida will only provide a public defender to someone who cannot afford their own defense lawyer, and it took nearly a year to determine that the defendant had inherited enough money to afford a private lawyer. Due to this delay, the trial was initially scheduled for mid-2020, which caused it to be delayed by the COVID-19 outbreak. In the case of the Tree of Life shooting, it appears to be straight-up delaying tactics by the defense. There are a great many motions, appeals of motions, requests for delay, and other things a lawyer can do to slow things down. Since the defendant is currently being held without bail, the prosecution probably isn't strongly motivated to speed things up.
ICE has a degree of authority to deport without court hearing, via an expedited process. The legal framework for such deportations are explained here, and rely on 8 USC 1225. The Secretary of DHS has authority to establish rules, and has recently done so here. The current regulations pertaining to expedited removal are at 8 CFR 253.3. There is no exemption for people being medically treated, for covid-19 or any other reason, but "parole" is available (at the discretion of the attorney general) to "parole" an immigrant if it is "is required to meet a medical emergency". Thus an illegal immigrant in the ICU might be exempt from immediate deportation, but that is at the discretion of the AG. State and local officials do not have the authority to interfere in the enforcement of federal law, even if the state or municipality has declared itself a "sanctuary". The criminal penalties for interference are spelled out here; no law compells cooperation, the law simply prohibits forcible interference.
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.
You might suggest that the neighbor consult with their insurance agent, in case the insurance policy does not cover liability from damage caused by standing trees, especially when the policy holder knows that the tree poses a threat to property. The only thing you can do without the neighbor's cooperation is complain to the city, since it's possible that this situation violates a local ordinance, and the city might order him to remove the tree.
I am not a lawyer and I have never even been to the UK. You will not go to prison if your neighbor's dog attacks you and it dies as a result of you defending yourself. You might go to prison and/or owe the owner damages if: You are somewhere you do not technically have a right to be. It can be shown you could have retreated from harm but chose instead to stand your ground. The force you used was deemed excessive - it showed intent to harm the dog more than necessary to protect yourself You contributed to the confrontation in a way that a reasonable person would think might cause trouble You might be able to protect yourself from problems by: taking pictures or videos of the dog behaving badly or aggressively note dates and times when you observe the dog behaving badly or aggressively formally contact the dog's owner with your concerns and/or evidence in which you assert your rights to access the areas you walk through and your right to defend yourself in the event that you are attacked by the dog if possible, change your route or schedule to avoid the problem entirely Good luck