GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic...Gretafan Doxxes Zrick And Plays The Victim

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
09 GTI
The curve has been flat since July, below average longer than that. Florida reopening. People surviving. The SCAM is exposed.
@StorableComa this pic says it all, the rest is just noise.
percent-ili-visits.gif
 

StorableComa

Autocross Champion
Location
Long Beach, USA
Car(s)
17 GSW S
You would have no case. If you think your saying "your honor, he sneezed on me and that's how I got covid" makes for a convincing case, O have news for you.

Nope, I meant psychiatrist. You are way past the stage where therapy can help.
Um.. if you have a positive covid test already, and the genetic sequencing between the two matches, I would have case so long as I could prove contact with you withiin your test period.. It's the same as infecting another person with a STD which have gone to court. You do not have the right to affect another persons life without consequence. That's why people get sued all the time.

Anyhow, VA psychiatrists just give out pills, they don't offer therapy other than referrals to therapy
 
Last edited:

jimlloyd40

Autocross Champion
Location
Phoenix
Car(s)
2018 SE DSG
Um.. if you have a positive covid test already, and the genetic sequencing between the two matches, I would have case so long as I could prove contact with you withiin your test period.. It's the same as infecting another person with a STD which have gone to court. You do not have the right to affect another persons life without consequence. That's why people get sued all the time.

I'm not arguing this with you but I have a few questions. You're talking about a civil case correct? Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get the testing done and a ball park figure on legal fees? And then if you win what are your chances of collecting damages equal to your costs? And then the defendant files bankruptcy and you get nothing. I'm just trying to understand why anyone would resort to court.
 

StorableComa

Autocross Champion
Location
Long Beach, USA
Car(s)
17 GSW S
I'm not arguing this with you but I have a few questions. You're talking about a civil case correct? Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get the testing done and a ball park figure on legal fees? And then if you win what are your chances of collecting damages equal to your costs? And then the defendant files bankruptcy and you get nothing. I'm just trying to understand why anyone would resort to court.
Personal injury or Tort cases, much like car accidents. Bankruptcy covers most civil cases but not these. The argument could be made if the user went out with the knowledge of being infected as well that might as well have discharged a firearm into the air. Similar cases have been made an won, the precedent is still there legally.

Tort Law
Can a Cough Create a Coronavirus Lawsuit?
A person may be held liable for spreading contagious illnesses because of tort law, which is different from criminal law. In tort law, a crime does not have to be committed. Instead, a person is held liable for damages done to a person out of malice or negligence.

The courts will deliver a judgement and award damages to an injured party as long as they can prove that the damages occurred due to their actions or negligence. This is what makes it possible to sue for spreading a contagious virus, but it is also what makes it a challenge.

In order to prove negligence, you must prove that the defendant had a duty to act, failed to act, it caused the damage, and there were damages. This can get difficult with invisible viruses and the ambiguous, subjective sense of duty. Should you be held liable for not being able to cover your cough because your hands were full? Can they pinpoint you as the cause of a virus that has spread throughout a community?

Granted that's were Burdon of proof comes in, but with social media and the fact that places like the way back machine archive them, it should be easy to find admittance of infection and unwillingness to wear a mask.
 

jimlloyd40

Autocross Champion
Location
Phoenix
Car(s)
2018 SE DSG
Personal injury or Tort cases, much like car accidents. Bankruptcy covers most civil cases but not these. The argument could be made if the user went out with the knowledge of being infected as well that might as well have discharged a firearm into the air. Similar cases have been made an won, the precedent is still there legally.

Tort Law
Can a Cough Create a Coronavirus Lawsuit?
A person may be held liable for spreading contagious illnesses because of tort law, which is different from criminal law. In tort law, a crime does not have to be committed. Instead, a person is held liable for damages done to a person out of malice or negligence.

The courts will deliver a judgement and award damages to an injured party as long as they can prove that the damages occurred due to their actions or negligence. This is what makes it possible to sue for spreading a contagious virus, but it is also what makes it a challenge.

In order to prove negligence, you must prove that the defendant had a duty to act, failed to act, it caused the damage, and there were damages. This can get difficult with invisible viruses and the ambiguous, subjective sense of duty. Should you be held liable for not being able to cover your cough because your hands were full? Can they pinpoint you as the cause of a virus that has spread throughout a community?

You know more about that than I do but it seems like it would be very difficult to prove the case.
 

StorableComa

Autocross Champion
Location
Long Beach, USA
Car(s)
17 GSW S
You know more about that than I do but it seems like it would be very difficult to prove the case.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard...gligence-liability-for-covid-19-transmission/
If we were to approach the potential defendants from the cases mentioned above, they would likely to argue that they have a “right to travel” or a “right to go to an event.” In Hohfeldian terms, they would assume they hold a “Privilege-Right,” and thus, have no duty to others. Such arguments should be rejected.

To determine whether there is a duty, courts typically consider different factors, among them “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved” (see Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108).

Tort case law has not yet provided an answer to whether contracting COVID-19 during a flight, private event, work out in the park, or grocery store constitutes harm. However, courts have long recognized a cause of action for negligently transmitting other diseases. “To be stricken with disease through another’s negligence is in legal contemplation as it often is in the seriousness of consequences, no different from being struck with an automobile through another’s negligence” (see Billo v. Allegheny Steel Co. (Pa. 1937) 195 A. 110).

In several states, courts have allowed lawsuits for the negligent transmission of diseases based on both actual and constructive knowledge and imposed liability on individuals who have harmed others (see, e.g., Earle v. Kuklo, 26 N.J. Super. 471, 475, 98 A.2d 107 (1953); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989); Berner v. Caldwell, 543 So. 2d 686 (1989)). In the case of
John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 117, for example, the California Supreme Court determined that the burden of a duty of care is “on defendants who know or have reason to know of their HIV infection is minimal, and the consequences for the community would be salutary.” The Court argued that the “tort of negligent transmission of HIV does not depend solely on actual knowledge of HIV infection and would extend at least to those situations where the actor, under the totality of the circumstances, has reason to know of the infection.”

Because both the likelihood of the transmission of COVID-19 and the severity of the risk and illness associated with it are high and there is also a public policy to prevent its spread, SARS-CoV-2 carriers owe a duty to other individuals, particularly to those in close proximity. As the different cases previously described show, the infected individuals either knew or had reason to know that they are carriers of SARS-CoV-2 — they developed symptoms or had close contact with other infected individuals. Despite that, they decided to act in a way that puts others at risk.
 

jimlloyd40

Autocross Champion
Location
Phoenix
Car(s)
2018 SE DSG
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard...gligence-liability-for-covid-19-transmission/
If we were to approach the potential defendants from the cases mentioned above, they would likely to argue that they have a “right to travel” or a “right to go to an event.” In Hohfeldian terms, they would assume they hold a “Privilege-Right,” and thus, have no duty to others. Such arguments should be rejected.

To determine whether there is a duty, courts typically consider different factors, among them “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved” (see Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108).

Tort case law has not yet provided an answer to whether contracting COVID-19 during a flight, private event, work out in the park, or grocery store constitutes harm. However, courts have long recognized a cause of action for negligently transmitting other diseases. “To be stricken with disease through another’s negligence is in legal contemplation as it often is in the seriousness of consequences, no different from being struck with an automobile through another’s negligence” (see Billo v. Allegheny Steel Co. (Pa. 1937) 195 A. 110).

In several states, courts have allowed lawsuits for the negligent transmission of diseases based on both actual and constructive knowledge and imposed liability on individuals who have harmed others (see, e.g., Earle v. Kuklo, 26 N.J. Super. 471, 475, 98 A.2d 107 (1953); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989); Berner v. Caldwell, 543 So. 2d 686 (1989)). In the case of
John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 117, for example, the California Supreme Court determined that the burden of a duty of care is “on defendants who know or have reason to know of their HIV infection is minimal, and the consequences for the community would be salutary.” The Court argued that the “tort of negligent transmission of HIV does not depend solely on actual knowledge of HIV infection and would extend at least to those situations where the actor, under the totality of the circumstances, has reason to know of the infection.”

Because both the likelihood of the transmission of COVID-19 and the severity of the risk and illness associated with it are high and there is also a public policy to prevent its spread, SARS-CoV-2 carriers owe a duty to other individuals, particularly to those in close proximity. As the different cases previously described show, the infected individuals either knew or had reason to know that they are carriers of SARS-CoV-2 — they developed symptoms or had close contact with other infected individuals. Despite that, they decided to act in a way that puts others at risk.

You must work in some legal capacity.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
Location
Hither and thither
Car(s)
Mk7 GTI
Um.. if you have a positive covid test already, and the genetic sequencing between the two matches, I would have case so long as I could prove contact with you withiin your test period.. It's the same as infecting another person with a STD which have gone to court. You do not have the right to affect another persons life without consequence. That's why people get sued all the time.

Anyhow, VA psychiatrists just give out pills, they don't offer therapy other than referrals to therapy

"Genetic sequencing between the two matches" -- facepalm.

"You do not have the right to affect another persons life without consequence." -- you can get off my lawn with your mask infatuation then.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
Location
Hither and thither
Car(s)
Mk7 GTI
No, but you might understand the surface level information behind viral spread and how it works. Which might give you a better starting point for masks.

You're a perfect example of a 21st century phenomenon: a belligerent amateur. Considering I hold a degree in psych with a focus on biological and physiological aspects, I will do very well without your couch research. ;)
 
Top