Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I’m in favor of ending unlimited qualified immunity but capping the maximum damages seems like a reasonable compromise for most cases. In the most egregious situations, the cap should be removed and government officers should face the same penalties as they would had they been acting as a private citizen.


Qualified immunity should only apply if the person is following protocol. If the protocol is wrong, the suite should go against the policy setter (municipality). If the person violated policy, it should be on them. If they neither violated nor followed policy, it should be determined by the courts.

I don't generally agree with capping damages. This could prevent real damages from being reimbursed. Capping intangibles could be ok though.


Agents of the government are generally indemnified against liability for acts in good faith. Accountability comes from work rules.

It’s unwise to open that door to personal liability, as there are many liability risks that even a low level official faces, even when their conduct is correct. Frankly, you’d need to be an idiot to have anything to do with HR or procurement working in any government subdivision with personal liabilty.


>In the most egregious situations, the cap should be removed

That doesn't make any sense to call a cap, you're basically saying "the awarded damages are not to exceed $N except for in cases where they are ruled to exceed $N."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: