Skip to main content

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?


When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove? 

Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for?

There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business. 

Products Liability
First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling false cures, mislabeling products, and any other situation where the purveyor knows what he is selling isn’t the same as what he’s advertising. Putting an N95 label on a less protective dust mask, or guaranteeing that your miracle drug will prevent or cure Covid when you know it’s just a sugar pill are concrete examples. This type of bald-faced lie should result in an award to the plaintiff in both compensable (compensating for the actual harm cause) and punitive (punishment for bad behavior) damages. This type of fraud should also result in criminal prosecution of the seller. 

One step below outright fraud is a seller acting recklessly.  A reckless seller doesn’t know that his claims are false, but he also has no reasonable basis for believing they are true. So someone who guarantees their homemade mask with coffee filter insert is just as effective as an N95 mask, without some good reason for believing it, would be reckless. These merchants should also face liability if someone gets sick while using their product. 

Sellers have a duty not to make reckless claims in selling their products, and any injury resulting from such a claim should be compensated. However, criminal prosecution is unlikely and would not be a good use of state prosecutors’ resources, since crimes usually require a willful state of mind. 

Finally, we turn to the trickiest part of products liability in the time of Covid: negligence and strict liability. Negligence is a breach of duty that one person owes to another, that causes a harm. If someone is in the business of making N95 masks and they don’t use ordinary care, leading to the mask being too thin and allowing micro-particles to pass through it, they might have been negligent. Strict liability means that the presence of a defect is all a plaintiff has to prove in order to receive compensation. These differences matter a great deal in the context of litigation, but for our purposes they can be treated the same. 

These standards may make sense under normal circumstances. But in times of crisis, we want entrepreneurs to seek profits by producing undersupplied goods (this profit incentive is why anti-price gouging laws should be abolished). It may be in our best interest to encourage this transition by relaxing standards to some degree. This is especially true for those who are donating items, or selling them at-cost, so long as their consumers are on notice that they are homemade goods, or were produced as a “better than nothing” alternative, and may not be as effective as comparable products. 

There may be a case for allowing new and even existing professional manufacturers to market their products as “better than nothing,” which would encourage more makers to transition from their primary operations to these needed products, provided they come with adequate notice. 

Spread of Covid within a Business 
Liability for the spread of Covid is where the legislature can do the most good in terms of stopping meritless suits before they are filed. Covid is a highly infectious disease. Going about your business in public could lead to an infection. The risks are, at this point, well documented. 

While there are reports of some grocery stores throwing away thousands of dollars worth of food after customers coughed on it, we should consider carefully whether we want that to become the norm (obviously intentional spread of disease can and should be punished, but it should the customer, not the store, who bears the cost). We as consumers would pay the price for such precautions, through higher prices. Stores can’t monitor every item on their shelves every second of the day. It is a virtual certainty that uncontaminated goods will be thrown away, and contaminated goods will make their way home to consumers. Should we stop what little commerce is left, and starve to death instead? 

There should, of course, be liability for anyone who acted willfully or recklessly. If a cruise line knew that passengers on a previous voyage had or likely had Covid, failed to warn future passengers, and did not sufficiently clean the ship, they might well be liable. On the other hand, if they had no such knowledge, they should bear no more blame for continuing to operate normally than their passengers bear for continuing to vacation normally. In a pandemic, one assumes the risk of infection simply by going out in public. Businesses should only be liable if they had reason to know of a heightened risk and failed to warn their patrons or remediate the problem. 

The legislature has the power to limit or eliminate causes of action. They can and should strike a balance that allows legitimate lawsuits to go forward as normal, while stopping frivolous suits before they start, especially for those who stepped up, or stayed open to provide vital services, in a time of emergency.  

Our Covid response has already wreaked havoc on the economy. Those businesses that survive the lockdown should not then be fed to a pack of ravenous lawyers, unless they knowingly or recklessly increased the risk of contagion. One economic crisis is enough for this year. 

Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

How Oklahoma Can Be Number One in Covid Policy

South Dakota, that sound you hear behind you is footsteps. Oklahoma can be Number One in the policy response to Covid-19. We’ve done fairly well to this point compared to other states, but to take us to the top, our leaders will need good, accurate information, must ignore hyperbole (often outright falsehoods) from the media-politico controversy machine, and should trust individual Oklahomans to do what is best for themselves and their families. Oh, and it would help to have some courage in the face of criticism (or ear plugs to tune out the whining). Fortunately, 1889 Institute has compiled a very helpful webpage containing the cold, hard facts about SARS-CoV-2. Based on these facts, not hysteria and virtue signaling, we recommend some straightforward policy responses. The page is here for anyone who wants to arm themselves with knowledge, rather than bask in the newly virtuous habit of broadcasting how afraid and ignorant one is. For example, did you know that the evidence for wid...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

Is Education No Longer the Primary Mission of Our Public Schools?

Did you know that the state of Oklahoma is currently experiencing not one, but two pandemics? Until yesterday, neither did I. According to the Oklahoma City School District, the state is currently experiencing the “dual pandemics of COVID-19 and Systemic Racism,” and has decided to spend valuable time and resources to ensure that their teachers learn how to “practice alternative ways of relating to…[their]students.” In the meantime, teachers are supposed to conduct their classes online   into November. Unfortunately, if the District doesn’t adequately prepare their teachers to use the available online learning platforms, it won’t matter how woke they are, they won’t be interacting with their students at all.   At this point, we really have no idea what the school year will look like, and school districts have given little basis for optimism that students will actually learn anything. Oklahoma City public schools closed in March and “went online.” However, due to lack of suffi...
Read more

Why Does Oklahoma License Polygraph Examiners?

Should polygraph examiners be licensed? In Oklahoma, a license is required to work as a polygraph examiner (a professional who applies lie-detector tests), and it is not at all obvious why. Generally, an occupation is licensed if it is obviously in the public’s interest to prevent potential bad actors from practicing. So, for example, it is argued that doctors must be licensed because, otherwise, some idiot might open a hospital in his garage and really hurt someone. And it is argued that accountants must be licensed because, otherwise, some college-dropout might offer to do accounting for an unsuspecting mom-and-pop shop, tell them their numbers look great (when, in fact, they don’t), and cause them to go bankrupt. In short, occupational licensing is supposed to either (1) prevent real, tangible harm, or (2) assure customers that their service-provider is trustworthy. However, interestingly, licensing polygraph examiners does not accomplish either of those goals because polygraph e...
Read more