COVID-19 in the Courtroom: The Role of Mask Mandates and Source of Exposure on Negligence and Recklessness Decisions

The current study examined whether business owners would be found liable for an employee’s illness from COVID-19 contracted at work. We varied whether there was a mask mandate at the time of the employee’s exposure (Yes or No), how the employee was exposed (an unmasked customer, an unmasked owner who forgot her mask, or an unmasked owner who did not require masks in her store) and measured participants’ political orientation. Participants (N = 257) read and listened to a trial transcript about an employee that contracted COVID-19 at her workplace and was suing her employer for compensation to cover hospital bills. Participants were more likely to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible when a mask mandate was present and when an unmasked owner led to the employee’s COVID-19 exposure compared to an unmasked customer. Furthermore, the more conservative the participant, the less likely they were to find the defendant negligent, reckless, and responsible. In sum, presence of a mask mandate, owner exposure, and juror political orientation play an important role in civil litigation involving COVID-19.