Overview
Title
To require a particular jury instruction in Federal civil actions that include a claim for damages based on negligence arising from the transmission of COVID–19.
ELI5 AI
In this bill, they want to tell juries to always think that opening a business during COVID times is okay and not wrong, even if someone gets sick, to make sure businesses aren't blamed just for being open.
Summary AI
H.R. 99 proposes specific instructions for juries in federal civil lawsuits seeking damages for negligence connected to the transmission of COVID-19. The bill outlines that the standard for determining negligence should be based on what a reasonable person would do in the same circumstance. It also states that simply opening a business should automatically be considered reasonable conduct by law, and negligence cannot be solely determined just because a business remains open. The goal is to protect businesses from being found negligent for merely operating during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 99, introduced in the 119th Congress, is titled the "Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025." This legislation is designed to mandate specific jury instructions in federal civil trials that involve claims of negligence related to COVID-19 transmission. The core provision of the bill specifies that the liability standard used should be the "reasonable person standard," which assesses whether a person acted in a manner consistent with how a reasonably careful person would behave under similar circumstances. Importantly, the bill asserts that simply opening a business cannot be deemed negligent, nor can negligence be based solely on remaining open.
Summary of Significant Issues
A critical issue with the bill is its firm stance that opening a business during the pandemic is inherently reasonable, regardless of the circumstances or adherence to health guidelines. This provision might undermine public health efforts by providing a blanket protection for business operations without scrutinizing their specific safety practices. Additionally, the inclusion of legal jargon such as "reasonable person standard" and "negligence" may create barriers to understanding for individuals without a legal background. Furthermore, focusing narrowly on COVID-19 might inadvertently disregard other potential public health concerns or legitimate negligence claims that warrant attention.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill could be seen as prioritizing business interests over individual health and safety. By setting a high bar for proving negligence, it may become more challenging for individuals to seek legal redress if they are subjected to unsafe conditions that may lead to COVID-19 transmission. The bill might therefore weaken accountability mechanisms for businesses during a public health crisis, thus impacting efforts to maintain widespread public safety.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses: The primary beneficiaries of this bill would likely be business owners. They stand to gain from reduced legal exposure to negligence claims, easing concerns about potential lawsuits as they operate amidst pandemic-related challenges. This protection could encourage businesses to remain open and economically active, potentially aiding financial recovery.
Individuals: For individuals, particularly employees and customers, the bill may pose risks by limiting their ability to challenge unsafe practices legally. Workers and consumers could feel less protected if employers are not held liable for failing to implement adequate safety measures.
Legal Community: Attorneys representing plaintiffs in negligence cases may find their efforts more constrained by the bill. The need to prove negligence beyond just the fact of a business being open could make such cases harder to argue, potentially reducing their willingness to take on such lawsuits.
Overall, the bill seeks to protect businesses from what it perceives as frivolous claims, but this protection could come at the expense of public health accountability and safety assurances. Balancing economic interests with health and safety remains a nuanced and contentious issue that stakeholders must navigate thoughtfully.
Issues
The clause in Section 2 stating that 'the act of opening a business, by itself, shall be considered to be reasonable as a matter of law' may undermine public health efforts by preventing accountability for businesses that do not adhere to health guidelines, limiting the enforceability of safety measures during a pandemic.
Section 2's stipulation that 'negligence may not be found solely on the basis of holding oneself open for business' could protect businesses from liability even if other negligent practices related to COVID-19 transmission occur, potentially leading to unjust legal protections that favor businesses over public health and safety.
The use of legal terminology in Section 2, such as the 'reasonable person standard' and the definitions of 'negligence,' might obscure understanding for individuals without legal expertise, raising concerns about the clarity and accessibility of the legislation for the general public.
Section 1's focus on protecting businesses from 'frivolous' COVID lawsuits in the bill title might limit the scope of protection to COVID-related lawsuits, potentially overlooking other legitimate claims or emerging health concerns in the future.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states that it can be officially referred to as the “Protecting Businesses From Frivolous COVID Lawsuits Act of 2025”.
2. Jury instruction in Federal civil actions that include a claim alleging negligence arising from the transmission of COVID–19 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In a Federal civil case involving a negligence claim related to COVID-19 transmission, the jury should be instructed that the liability is based on the reasonable person standard. This means a person may be considered negligent if they do something a careful person wouldn't or fail to do something a careful person would, but merely opening a business is not inherently negligent.