share_log

'Take home' lawsuits over COVID infections could be costly for U.S. employers

'Take home' lawsuits over COVID infections could be costly for U.S. employers

對美國僱主來説,針對COVID感染的“帶回家”訴訟可能代價高昂
路透社 ·  2020/09/28 18:00

By Tom Hals
   Sept 28 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses with COVID-19 outbreaks are facing an emerging legal threat from claims that workers brought coronavirus home and infected relatives, which one risk analysis firm said could cost employers billions of dollars.
   The daughter of Esperanza Ugalde of Illinois filed in August what lawyers believe is the first wrongful death "take home" lawsuit, alleging her mother died of COVID-19 that her father contracted at Aurora Packing Co's meat processing plant.
   The cases borrow elements from "take home" asbestos litigation and avoid caps on liability for workplace injuries, exposing business to costly pain and suffering damages, even though the plaintiff never set foot on their premises.
   "Businesses should be very concerned about these cases," said labor and employment attorney Tom Gies of Crowell & Moring, which defends employers.
   The lawsuit against Aurora alleges that Ricardo Ugalde worked "shoulder to shoulder" on the company's processing line in April when Aurora knew it had a coronavirus outbreak at its facility and failed to warn employees or adopt any infection prevention measures.
   Aurora did not respond to a request for comment.
   Between 7% and 9% of the roughly 200,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths so far are believed to stem from take-home infections and the lawsuits could cost businesses up to $21 billion if the number of Americans fatalities reaches 300,000, according to Praedicat, a firm that evaluates risks for insurers.
   Rob Reville, Praedicat's chief executive, cautions that is a worst-case scenario and said the cases might cost far less, depending on how judges view the lawsuits.
   The U.S. workers compensation system generally makes it difficult for workers to sue for COVID-19. The system caps liability for businesses and bars costly lawsuits in return for quick payments to employees, who do not need to prove fault.
   But Esperanza Ugalde was not an employee of Aurora, so her family can sue the company. Depending on the circumstances, a successful wrongful death case can top $1 million in damages.
   Take-home cases have been around for decades in asbestos litigation and courts have split on whether a business has an obligation to members of the public who have never been on their premises.
   In 2013, a California jury awarded Rose-Marie Griggs $27.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages after she contracted mesothelioma that her lawyers argued was caused by asbestos fibers carried home in the 1950s on the work clothes of her then-husband, who installed insulation for an affiliate of Owens-Illinios Inc.
   The company appealed and two sides reached a private settlement before the appeal was heard.
  
   CONTESTING THE 'CAUSAL CHAIN'
   Attorneys for both plaintiffs and companies said successful  cases require a strong "causal chain" linking the sick family member to the worker and then to the business and the business's alleged failure to adopt safety measures.
   Miriam Alvarez Reynoso sued Byrne & Schaefer Inc, a manufacturer of electrical components in Lockport, Illinois, alleging negligence by the company led to her contracting COVID-19 and suffering "serious injuries to multiple organs."
   Reynoso's lawsuit says she became infected while caring for her husband Servando Reynoso, a parts assembler at the company, who came home sick from work on April 8. It lists 18 categories of alleged shortcomings by Byrne & Schaefer, including failing to clean work areas and ignoring employees who said they had COVID-19 symptoms.
   Company owner Tim Byrne said his five employees wore masks routinely before the pandemic to protect against dust and regularly used gloves.
   "He was sick before anyone else," said Byrne. "It's difficult to prove after the fact."
   Lawyers said employers would likely be reluctant to settle the cases for significant sums until claims were vetted in the court system.
   Peter Wozniak, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg who represents employers, said the cases will test juror attitudes toward the behavior of plaintiffs, who need to show they protected themselves from other sources of infection.
   "Are you always wearing a mask? Are you staying six feet away? Are you washing your hands," he said. "It will be interesting and unpredictable with regards to people's attitudes for individual responsibility."
   The best protection for business owners will be adopting and documenting measures to protect workers.
   "If they had acted reasonably and if Aurora put these things in place prior to the death of Esperanza I don't know if I would have taken the case," said Bridget Duignan, who represents Ugalde's daughter.
   "But they did nothing."

(Reporting by Tom Hals; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Daniel
Wallis

湯姆·哈爾斯(Tom Hals)著路透9月28日電-新冠肺炎疫情爆發的美國企業正面臨一項新的法律威脅,因有指控稱工人將冠狀病毒帶回家並感染親屬,一家風險分析公司稱這可能令僱主損失數十億美元。伊利諾伊州埃斯佩蘭扎·烏加爾德的女兒在8月份提起了律師認為是第一起不當死亡“帶回家”的訴訟,聲稱她的母親死於新冠肺炎,她的父親在奧羅拉包裝公司的肉類加工廠承包了合同。這些案件借鑑了“帶回家”石棉訴訟的元素,避免了工作場所傷害責任的上限,使企業面臨代價高昂的痛苦和損害,儘管原告從未踏足他們的辦公場所。“企業應該非常關注這些案件,”為僱主辯護的Crowell&Moring的勞工和就業律師湯姆·吉斯(Tom Gies)説。針對奧羅拉的訴訟稱,裏卡多·烏加爾德(Ricardo Ugalde)4月份在該公司的加工線上“肩並肩”工作,當時奧羅拉知道其設施爆發了冠狀病毒,但未能警告員工或採取任何感染預防措施。奧羅拉沒有回覆記者的置評請求。據為保險公司評估風險的Praedicat公司稱,美國新冠肺炎迄今約20萬人死亡中,據信有7%至9%是由帶回家感染引起的,如果美國死亡人數達到300,000人,這些訴訟可能會給企業造成高達210億美元的損失。Praedicat首席執行官羅布·雷維爾(Rob Reville)警告稱,這是最糟糕的情況,並表示,案件的成本可能會低得多,這取決於法官對訴訟的看法。美國的工人賠償制度通常會讓工人很難為新冠肺炎提起訴訟。該制度限制了企業的責任,並禁止代價高昂的訴訟,以換取向不需要證明過錯的員工快速付款。但埃斯佩蘭扎·烏加爾德不是奧羅拉的僱員,因此她的家人可以起訴該公司。根據情況,一起成功的不當死亡案件可能會造成高達100萬美元的損害賠償。在石棉訴訟中,實得案件已經存在了幾十年,法院在一家企業是否有義務對從未到過其房產的公眾承擔義務的問題上存在分歧。2013年,加利福尼亞州的一個陪審團判給羅斯-瑪麗·格里格斯(Rose-Marie Griggs)2730萬美元的補償性和懲罰性賠償,此前她患上了間皮瘤,她的律師辯稱,這種間皮瘤是由她當時的丈夫在20世紀50年代帶回家的工作服上的石棉纖維造成的,她的丈夫為歐文斯-伊利諾斯公司(Owens-Illinios Inc.)的一家附屬公司安裝了絕緣材料。該公司提出上訴,雙方在上訴審理前達成了私人和解。質疑“因果鏈”原告和公司的律師都表示,成功的案件需要一個強大的“因果鏈條”,將患病的家庭成員與工人聯繫起來,然後與企業以及企業被指未能採取安全措施聯繫起來。米里亞姆·阿爾瓦雷斯·雷諾索起訴伊利諾伊州洛克波特的電子元器件製造商伯恩-謝弗公司,指控該公司的疏忽導致她感染了新冠肺炎,並遭受了“多個器官的嚴重損傷”。雷諾索的訴訟稱,她是在照顧丈夫塞爾萬多·雷諾索(Servando Reynoso)時感染的。雷諾索是該公司的一名零部件裝配工。雷諾索於4月8日病假回家。訴狀列出了拜恩-舍費爾被指控的18類缺點,包括未能清理工作場所,以及忽視自稱有新冠肺炎症狀的員工。公司老闆蒂姆·伯恩(Tim Byrne)表示,他的五名員工在疫情爆發前經常戴口罩,以防止灰塵,並經常使用手套。“他比任何人都病得早,”伯恩説。“事後很難證明這一點。”律師們表示,在法院系統對索賠進行審查之前,僱主可能不願以大筆金額了結這些案件。代表僱主的Barnes&Thornburg律師事務所律師彼得·沃茲尼亞克(Peter Wozniak)表示,這些案件將考驗陪審員對原告行為的態度,原告需要證明他們保護自己免受其他傳染源的感染。他説:“你總是戴着口罩嗎?你站在6英尺遠的地方嗎?你在洗手嗎?”“關於人們對個人責任的態度,這將是有趣和不可預測的。”對企業主的最好保護將是採取並記錄保護工人的措施。烏加爾德女兒的代理律師布里奇特·迪格南(Bridget Duignan)説:“如果他們的行為是合理的,如果奧羅拉在埃斯佩蘭扎死前就把這些事情做好了,我不知道我是否會接手這個案子。”“但他們什麼也沒做。”(Tom Hals報道;Noeleen Walder和Daniel編輯沃利斯

譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。


以上內容僅用作資訊或教育之目的,不構成與富途相關的任何投資建議。富途竭力但無法保證上述全部內容的真實性、準確性和原創性。
    搶先評論