zlacker

Because there's no way to draw a clear line between "nuisance" suits and "serious" suits. Go ahead, try articulating it in a precise way that can't be gamed.

>>_bxg1+(OP)
I think the parent comment was making the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a protection is generally useful, it should be generally available.

>>nickff+32
As a private citizen you’re acting on your own behalf and discretion?

Here I can’t sue mr Amash if I disagree with his bill, but I can sue him as a private citizen if he violates my civil rights as a person.

>>_bxg1+(OP)
It isn't a question of defining that clear line. I think the parent poster is saying: why should only government employees get this special immunity? Why do government employees get to make reasonable mistakes and be protected, but no one else does?

>>_bxg1+(OP)
So then flip the question, why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

>>SkyBel+Q3
That's what I'm saying, is that they shouldn't. And that probably nobody should, because legal recourse is essential, even if it's open to abuse.

>>_bxg1+(OP)
Is exactly the point I'm making.

>>SkyBel+Q3
I think the idea was that the government is a big target and it hurts everyone when it is the subject of nuisance suits. Whereas an individual is less likely to be targeted.

>>_bxg1+(OP)
If there was a way to draw a clear line, it would kill the insurance industry. It is one of the reason why you are required to have insurance on everything.

>>clampr+O2
Because they act neither in their own name nor for their own benefit.

Issuing or denying a permit could easily have millions of dollars of impact. Nobody in their right mind would agree to take that kind of personal responsibility without a proportionally high profit.

>>SkyBel+Q3
I think you've got it backwards: the government itself isn't immune, but individual government employees are. In other words, you can sue the state of Utah over its policy, but not the individual employees implementing that policy.

>>prapta+Tb
Same is true for any other employee of any other organization.

If a cable tech steals something from your house, is the cable company liable, or the cable tech?

Edit: a similar doctrine should (but doesn't) apply to decisionmakers at large corporations. If the CEO is told repeatedly about a safety failure and refuses to take action, it's ridiculous to me that the CEO isn't personally liable for any damage or injury caused as a result.

>>mc32+G2
The immunity enjoyed by Legislators is similar to but distinct from the Qualified Immunity enjoyed by government employees.

In the case of Federal Legislators, their immunity is written into the constitution explicitly.

No such explicit provision exists for government employees.

>>SkyBel+Q3
why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

Under the centuries-old principle of sovereign immunity, the government can simply choose not to be liable for anything at all. Sovereign immunity is the default for most countries now, and throughout history.

The US and the countries of the EU are relatively unique in allowing themselves to be sued for damages for their failures.

>>nickff+32
It IS generally available. If you are acting on the behalf of a private organization (and not a public one) the corporation that you work for is responsible for your actions (short of breaking the law) and not you.

>>banana+Hi
IANAL, but I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation. You may not be worth going after if the corporation has a lot of money and you don't, or the company may indemnify you, but you're probably still liable.

>>nerdpo+5c
In most (all?) countries CEOs (and directors, and employees) are personally liable for criminal acts.

The problem is this whole qualified immunity is a civil thing. Workplace safety negligence, theft, police violence all are criminal cases. But. After the the prosecutors (DAs) stopped charging police officers people started suing them in civil court.

The problem is not QI per se, the problem is _wtf_ is going on with cops killing anybody in non-violent cases. (And how come there's not a public inquiry when someone dies in law enforcement custody or during any interaction with police. And how come nothing has really changed over the years - except police got the old tanks from the post-9/11 war-on-terror spending spree.)

>>nickff+Yl
The fact that you use the word "liable" is telling, because QI does not protect someone from illegal actions they take while operating as an agent of the state (or at least it shouldn't/wasn't intended to). It sets up another obstacle whereby if you want to go after an agent of the state personally for their actions, you have to be able to prove those actions are illegal before you can even start talking about their liability.

>>nerdpo+5c
QI doesn't protect government employees for their illegal actions so you're comparing apples and hammers.

QI protects government employees from retaliation for decisions made as part of their job, that are necessary for them to complete their job. Police unions and sociopaths with badges and law degrees have bastardized this to try to use it to protect police officers for murdering people.

>>nickff+Yl
> I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation

Probably depends on exactly where you are, but in the US the "LL" in "LLC" is "Limited Liability". (The same concept applies for a C-corp, and Europe has equivalent constructs AFAIK.)

One of the main selling points of a corporation is limited liability. If you are acting on behalf of the company you are very explicitly not "jointly" or in any other way liable for its actions. There are very specific things you have to do wrong to become individually liable; this is called "piercing the veil":

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...