Canada just lost its measles-free status. So here’s the question…

If an unvaccinated child spreads measles to someone else’s kid, why shouldn’t the parents be liable in small-claims court?

I’m not talking about criminal charges, just basic responsibility. If your choice creates the risk you should have to prove you weren’t the reason someone else’s child got sick.

Is that unreasonable?

  • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I don’t disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

    • 🇾 🇪 🇿 🇿 🇪 🇾@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t disagree with this mindset, but I do want to say that it should be on the plaintiff to prove your child caused the problem rather than the defendant to prove they did not. Proving a negative is damn near impossible in court.

      If your choices raise everyone else’s risk, it’s fair that you carry some of the burden. Courts deal in probability every day.

      • ChexMax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Honestly, I’d settle for disclosure, especially now that they’re removing school requirements in some states. It would be worth it to me to know which kids/ parents to keep my kids away from.

    • Value Subtracted@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Agreed - it’s pretty unlikely that you’d be able to prove something like that.

      I suppose you could try to apply precedents surrounding HIV disclosure, but I think it’d be a tough sell.

      Edit: And to be clear, even in that situation, we’re talking about disclosure, not actual treatment-related choices.