In each session of the Connecticut General Assembly, there is an occasional legislative proposal which extends immunity from liability to a select class of persons engaged in specific activities (such as doctors, architects, athletic trainers, etc.). Such proposals rarely stand scrutiny when they are measured against the negative exposure to members of the public who no longer would be able to recover damages when injured or harmed by immune parties, and they fail to become law.
For some reason, in this legislative session, there seems to have been an unusually high number of proposed immunity bills filed in the General Assembly. Immunity proposals are offered in many cases with the goal of encouraging business growth, and in this economy, we are all sensitive to that concern. The argument is made that if we just give these people immunity from lawsuits (often couched as needed “protection”) they may create jobs. Or, it is sometimes suggested that if we give people immunity it would encourage them to otherwise engage in activities to benefit the public or take life-saving measures on behalf of another (Such as acting as a Good Samaritan, installing smoke detectors, etc.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
