will be interesting to see sope. i'm going to disagree and say no negligence/torts will work. these are Cap police injured while providing security (i.e. the course and scope of their employment). trump was still the president at the time. so no claim against trump will work. third party claims against non gov employees like the proud boys might fly provided there is no federal case law that supports the fireman's rule like states. if there's a fireman's rule then those claims won't work either.Depends on whether you're a fellow employee of officer, director or representative of the injured party's employer. If so, workers comp . . . if not, then negligence/intentional torts would apply.
I once had a case that was the inverse of this. A claimant sued a church for damages incurred when the pastor of the church sexually molested at least one child at the child care center that used by the church's name . . . and was run by the pastor's wife. I represented the church, and filed a MtD based on the actionable activity - the molestation - was outside of the pastor's scope of employment. (I cited a Florida case in which a state trooper pulled over a woman, then raped her . . . on appeal the court said that rape was not within the trooper's scope of employment.) Of course, those cases were in the old days . . . early 80s - I haven't kept up with how the scope of employment rules have developed since then.
Seems to me that the complaint is drafted in a way to avoid the application of Workers Compensation rules . . . and might be successful.
just by way of example. city cop gets called to the arena to break up a fight. the cop has a comp claim but he doesn't get to sue the person he was in a fight with because that was what he was there to do. fireman's rule prevents it. cop gets called to the arena to stop a fight and on his way to the arena gets t-boned. then the cop gets a comp claim but also a third party tort claim against hte driver because that wasn't what he was called upon to do and outside of the fireman's rule.