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.)
