Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

Yes, but certain groups of people who's job it is to confront people in the public are the recipients of orders of magnitude more complaints than the average individual.

The legal system is unfortunately set up such that there is a significant burden (time and cost) on defendants, even when cases are brought without merit.

In that way, the legal system can be "weaponized" and public employees can be influenced to act a certain way under the threat of a sea of PERSONAL lawsuits. ...something that seldom happens to individuals.

For that reason, immunity was created. I think we'll see a very sharp increase in lawsuits as a result of this change. ...and a lot of resignations. I wouldn't be a police officer if I didn't have immunity. At the very least, I would refuse to work shifts/neighborhoods with high crime.

View on HN

> who's job it is to confront people in the public

You mean bouncers, train conductors, cabin crew members and hotel receptionists?

If you are a private security agent for a mall what's the difference with a cop patrolling a mall?

In sectors where private compete with public that's very difficult to understand why people should be regulated by different laws.

People doing their jobs and receive training should be personally immune from legal liability. That liability should be held by their employer.

...which is generally how it works, though it's not as strongly codified as it is with qualified immunity.

If you're saying we should expand qualified immunity, I agree.

> People doing their jobs and receive training should be personally immune from legal liability. That liability should be held by their employer.

They aren’t, outside of government-agent immunities.

> ...which is generally how it works, though it's not as strongly codified as it is with qualified immunity

No, it is not how it works. The idnividual agent is generally personally liable, but the employer generally is often also liable for the torts of its agents under the principle of respondeat superior, or more directly if it also checks all the boxes for having committed a tort without considering that principle.

The problem comes when the people doing their jobs are also abusing their power for personal gain or vendetta and can’t be punished.

Did you even read the bill? That is exactly what it does

> INDEMNIFICATION BY PUBLIC BODY.--A judgment awarded pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act against a person acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of the public body shall be paid by the public body.

I think it's more about finding the right middle ground than anything else. So expanding is good if people are still responsible in a way.

I agree that a lot of time the institution are liable (mostly for ordering people to achieve impossible target).

"... significant burden on [rogue govt] defendants ..."

Victims currently have little or no recourse, so govt employees can run wild. Non-govt handles this by insurance (liability, error and ommission). Govt can and should do the same. Equal rights, or not?

Assuming these cases have no merit, most of that burden is needing to pay for legal representation and spend time dealing with it. In general we'd be better off if the justice system were reformed to reduce these damages for everyone. In the meantime, employer (government) policies can straightforwardly handle both of these, without needing to undermine the justice system by creating a privileged group of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com