Doesn't this set the precedent that you don't have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven't seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn't there and I'm not related or involved. Isn't that what they just opened up?
Doesn't this set the precedent that you don't have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven't seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn't there and I'm not related or involved. Isn't that what they just opened up?