Safety and OSHA News

Worker hurt in off-duty exercise class — why company had to pay

exercise

You hear it all the time: Sedentary, overweight and out-of-shape employees can be a huge drain when it comes to health insurance, workers’ comp and other costs. Whip ’em into shape and you’ll save, save, save!

True, but be careful. A recent court decision offers a cautionary tale.

The bottom line: An employee who suffered a spinal cord injury while exercising at a gym was awarded workers’ comp.

Now, under most circumstances, employees who get hurt in voluntary off-duty activities aren’t entitled to comp. But there are three exceptions: Comp can be awarded if an employer requires the employee to participate, compensates him or her for doing so, or sponsors the activity.

In this case, the employee was neither required nor compensated for his gym membership — though he had the option to be reimbursed for half of his membership (he chose not to take it).

And the company didn’t exactly “sponsor” the activity.

What it did was encourage the employee to participate. Why? To help develop contacts with current and prospective clients.

In affirming a lower court decision, the state Supreme Court cited two factors:  (1) The company at least offered to pay half of its employees’ membership fees; and (2) it encouraged participation as a way to further business interests.

It did not say whether either factor alone would have been enough to carry the day.

What do you think? Should you worry about crossing a line when you urge employees to lead active, healthier lifestyles? Let us know in the Comment Box below.

Print Friendly

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest safety news and insights delivered to your inbox.

Comments

  1. Ted Bean says:

    An additional factor, which you failed to mention was that this was not a random exercise program in the hopes of associating with clients, this was an exercise club on the client’s premises where mingling with clients was an expected occurance. That makes this case different from jogging in the park or playing golf on a public course. Utilizing a club on the client premises also makes fitness a secondary factor in the decision to go there. Encouraging employee fitness still has more benefits than risks.

  2. Mellony Wilson says:

    I work for a company that participates in The American Heart Association and we join with the rest of the community for the Heart Walkathon. If an employee is injured with doing this is the company liable?

  3. I hope they use the fact that this was for business to differentiate, otherwise it opens to door to a lot more claims which could mean a lot more frivolous cases.

  4. Mac Maclaren says:

    Nothing like reading the decision. Not only was the exercise facility on the premises of the client, the job of the person who was injured was to develop new client contacts. Further, the injury occurred during work hours.

    Of course the company had to pay. Good heavens to Murgatroid!

  5. Is this article implying that providing a health club incentive exposes the employer to potential WC liability? Please say no.

  6. I think it is better to encourage employees to exercise via the health insurance program (some insurance gives a company a break if the employee belongs to a gym), rather than encourage them via company sponsored, mandated, or “encouraged for client contact” type of activities.

    What I have seen backfire on a company is to have a yearly picnic with everyone playing softball at the park. If someone was injured, they are within their rights to claim a worker’s comp injury due to this being a company-sponsored event.

  7. Dan Mueller says:

    I think it is in a companies best interest to supply information and support resources for a healthier lifestyles (i.e. eating, exercise etc.)!
    Until I read this; I now feel that is as far as it should go.
    Companies have worked hard over years and been forced to accomodate non-work related lifestyles and at times been forced to swallow an individual’s responsibility with compensation.
    It is getting to the point of ridicules.
    I believe it is the individuals responsibility to act upon new found health information and do it for themselves.
    This situation being they wanted to use the exercise location to maintain contacts and clientel; well that is stretching it some; but I am sure many others due the same.

  8. Gene Szekely says:

    So if an employee hurts himself en-route to the clothing store so he can show a better appearance to his clients, he is entitled to comp?
    Sounds like the same thing to me.

  9. Ann Brown says says:

    I would be very surprised if we got any claim against us for sponsoring a wellness program where people were given small rewards for meeting walking benchmarks using their company issued pedometer. We’ll steer clear of suggesting routes to walk, but that’s it.

  10. I completely disagree that this case is about employee fitness at all. It sounds like all it was was to “mingle” and drum up business. It was a social business affair, that was NOT at all about the fitness of the employee, only to further business relations with clients, and prospective clients.

    It also sounds like the employer tried to make it sound like the employee was there strictly as a fitness program, instead of business, just to get off the hook for paying the comp.

    It’s cases like this, where the employer tries to weasle out of paying that is just rediculous. Of course, there are also numerous cases on the flip side, that employees are just trying to get a free ride, and have their bills paid by their employer.

  11. Mac Maclaren says:

    Other than Ted Bean, have any of you actually READ the decision? All the real meat is in there. It is a no-brainer for the payment.

  12. It is hard enough in NY with WC claims- it always end up being for the employee. We are trying to trend towards better health programs, getting the employee healthy so that they can be at work and be productive. This case outcome could affect the way a company looks at health programs going forward. Maybe employees are a dime a dozen- if they get sick then we just replace them. Is that the new message???

  13. We are taking this workers comp thing a little too far. a whole new meaning to “in and during the course of employment”. WE have to leave some of the responsibility for our health and safety to the human brain. IF its too dangerous or if it appears you are taking chances, it should be on your dime, not the employers.

  14. Jeff Martin says:

    Again, where do we draw the line for individual responsibility. If you are on the clock or at a company function you should be entitled to WC otherwise no… I know of a worker that got stabbed while on the job and on company property and WC denied the claim stating that is wasn’t a compensatory claim seeing how it was a criminal act. I believe this person should have been able to collect WC cause it’s the employors responsibility to provide a safe work environment. This worker ended up being off work for several months cause of the incident and never got a dime. Joe Schmoe pulls his groin and gets WC and someone who is on company time and property is denied…? Please tell me this isn’t where we are going as a nation…

  15. Not all employees participate in our companies health insurance package so I would hate to exclude them from club memberships if we went that route.

    Yep, it is indeed WC if someone gets hurt at the company picnic or Xmas party and it is the companies liability if the employee hurts someone else on the way home from a picninc or Xmas party. Sad but true. You do what you can to lessen the liability without stopping the fun things from happening.

  16. I think we are now open to a heck of a lot more liability for our employees lifestyle choices – Getting Closer to the “Gattica” model of employment if you ask me.

  17. In the worker’s comp case cited above it would be my guess that the court’s decision was predicated upon the fact that the employer encouraged the worker to go to the gym “to develop business and client relationships”, which effectively means he was working, at the direction or request of his employer, when the injury occurred. I would like to believe that simply encouraging an employee to work out to improve his or her physical wellbeing would not be “rewarded” with a comp claim, especially if they’weren’t intended to be furthering the employers business by doing so.

  18. Janie Fillman says:

    The gym is onsite, potential contacts are at the gym; of course they paid. The employee was not a fitness buff, he was doing his job by going. I personally don’t even question this.

  19. Isaiah Brown says:

    Could you please comment on the matter of company excercise equipment provided on site for employees.

  20. I totally disagree with this case. All though I support involvement and encourage employer wellness programs, they should not be held liable. My husband pays 82 dollars a month out of his own pocket for disability insurance in case there is ever an emergency. This is already on top of what he pays into the government system. Plus why didn’t this employer have an signed agreement where before embarking on fitness program the worker should 1) have a physical and 2) agree not to hold the company liable should they attempt to bench press 500 lbs…etc..

  21. Jeff Martin says:

    SC, I just wanted to chime in on company liability. A company can have as many forms as they want signed by an employee to state that they won’t hold the employer liable however, according to WC law an employer can not sign off on liability. Otherwise employers would make this a condition of employment. Sign this paper so we aren’t liable for your injuries and we will hire you. What these people are doing is making it hard for an employer to offer incentives for working for them cause everytime they offer anything extra some dumba** finds a way to sue or collect ruining it for everyone else. Heck, McDonald’s has always put Caution: HOT on all their coffee cups and someone still got $2 million for burning their crotch. Employers are going to get to the point where they say I will pay you this wage and that’s it… Everything else is on you…

  22. To Jeff Martin: The lady who got $2 million from McDonald’s from the coffee that burned her so badly had to have skin grafts on her legs. That’s hotter than your average coffee if it requires skin grafts!

    Or do you think it’s okay for McDonald’s to serve coffee that is THAT HOT?

    My point is that you need to not make assumptions about cases by just reading the summary of the case.

  23. Yeah but Aida, McDonalds did not spill the coffee on her, she did it herself. Her own mistake and accidents. Although I agree that hot enough for gafts is ridiculously hot, a person needs to be accountable for their own actions and mistakes.

  24. Jeff Martin says:

    I understand and made no assumptions. To me HOT means HOT. If it wouldn’t cause damage or hurt you then you wouldn’t need the disclaimer. Liquid causes damage at 120 degrees or above. The warning is on the cup to state that the coffee is HOT. It is in an insulated cup to add further protection. I feel bad for her for what has happened but there has to be a point where people take responsibility for there own actions. We get served luke warm coffee now cause of the fear of being sued. Most coffees or hot drinks are heated to boiling while making it the instructions for most tea’s states to heat water to boiling and add product. What is hotter than normal? I am supposed to pay someone JUST because they got hurt even though it was due to their own negligence whether by accident or stupidity??? Come on the cup said HOT, take the necessary precautions to prevent an accident… We have disclaimers for a reason.

  25. So RWA, let me get this straight. If I handed you a cup of coffee that was too hot for you to hold and you spilled it on yourself, and you suffered burns bad enough to receive skin grafts, then it’s YOUR fault that you spilled the coffee? It’s not the fault of whomever brewed the coffee and handed it to you?

    Typical coffee burns will heal in a day, and does not require hospitalization, nor does a typical coffee burn require skin grafts. There is a difference.

  26. Well said Jeff.

  27. Jeff Martin says:

    Funny thing Aida… Did the person handing the coffee have asbestos gloves on? Why weren’t they being burned by the insulated cup with steaming hot coffee in it while handing it to the customer??? This is why this country is is such a financial crisis. Cause we are constantly paying for other peoples mistakes. Pay for you own world, pay for your own life, pay for you own mistakes!!! Take responsibility for your actions, Good and Bad. WOW!!!

  28. Janie Fillman says:

    I think you have all forgotten the most important part of that stupid case; she was holding the coffee between her lets while driving! The law is not to protect us from our own stupidity; it’s there to protect us from things that are wrong. You buy coffee it’s hot or there’s complaints it’s only luke warm. My thoughts on that old dog.

  29. Hi Aida, It’s one thing to spill something on yourself, and it’s another if someone spills it on you or hands you something too hot for you to handle that you spill on yourself. The lady spilled it on herself, McDonald’s did not spill it on her or cause her to spill it, but the McDonald’s case, as I just learned, is more complex than what it seems. She had the coffee in her knees and when she tried to pull off the lid to add cream and sugar she spilled it in her lap. Her sweatpants absorbed it and pressed it against her skin for 90 seconds, leading to the burns. Now, it was her own fault that it spilled, and for that she is accountable. I just learned though a few things. The coffee was around 180-190 degrees, a little ridiculous. McDonalds had also had about 700 other lawsuits within the ten years or so before that related to the heat of the coffee, meaning their inaction was also at fault. The poor lady did spend 8 days in the hospital and had about 2 years of treatmeant. She initially only asked for 20,000 to cover for the medical expenses, but they said no and she kept on fighting. It just shows though, that assumptions are easy, but when something is awarded like this there is usually more behind it. Not that I agree with it 100%, but I get it, there’s always more to tell. Given the facts, I can stand the settlement. Still, though, McDonald’s did not spill it, so she did have some responsibility and she is the only one that controlled the spill and that could have prevented the accident in the first place.

  30. Hi Janie, according to the case, she wasn’t driving. It had said that she was pulled over to the side and parked. I wouldn’t be surprised though if she was actually driving, but the record doesn’t indicate such, and I can see the accident happening in either case.

  31. Wow. You people are some cold-hearted individuals. She wasn’t being stupid by spilling the coffee; it was so extremely hot that she couldn’t hold the cup and it spilled. I’d like to see any of you get third degree burns over six percent of your body requiring you to be hospitalized and have everyone tell you that you were being stupid to have caused the accident. She wasn’t driving, she had pulled over to the side to put cream in the coffee. Read about it ehre:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

    Please understand, I detest frivolous lawsuits. But the McDonald’s Coffee Case was not a frivolous lawsuit.

  32. Jeff Martin says:

    Gees people… The coffee you get out of your own machine at home is near boiling!!! That is 212 degrees. 180 to 190 is not ridiculous. Do you want temperature gages on the cup… What is acceptable??? What’s not is paying someone for their own stupidity. The whole point of this whole thing is to get away from paying people for doing stupid things only to blame someone else for it. You hurt yourself while working you are covered… Otherwise you are responsible…

  33. To Jeff Martin: I can only assume that you use a ceramic mug at home with handles on it to put your coffee in. This lady had a cardboard cup with no handles. Therefore, you can’t equate the situation with your home coffee pot and mug. That case wasn’t about being stupid; it was about being confronted with something that was too hot to handle and not being able to hold the cup. Why not read the case before you make any more comments like that?

  34. Aida, it says she had it between her legs and she spilled it when she tried to open the lid. She didn’t drop it because it was so scolding hot, that did not happen. It was her fault.

  35. How on earth do people drink the coffee if its that hot?

  36. Also, Aida, it was styrofoam, not cardboard.

    I’d be curious to know what other joints keep their temperature of their coffee at.

  37. Jeff Martin says:

    Again Aida, I do feel bad for the woman. That isn’t the point. We want everyone else to exercise caution, common sense, and a certain level of intelligence when providing goods for someone else, which they should. However, when that good is transferred to the customer why is the customer devoid of any caution, common sense, and intelligence? If you want to put the constraints on a vendor of goods the same constraints must pass onto the customer. The cups at McDonalds are insulated. You are still going to feel the heat, though. I wasn’t calling her stupid but the common sense and intelligence that is expected of McDonalds should also be expected of her. She should have put the cup on a soild surface to do what she needed to do. Everyone knows that when you put a CARDBOARD cup between your legs that the likelyhood of spilling or CRUSHING the cup is high. I am a safety manager where I work and I work on being proactive to prevent accidents and that does not exclude the employees from doing there part. The employee must act prudently and take the necessary precautions to assure their own safety as does the employer. My assumption on how you would have industry is that the employer must bubblewrap everything so the employee doesn’t get hurt. Both sides must adher to the same level of caution, common sense, and intelligence. In this case she did not. And Cheryl… I have no clue how people drink anything that hot.

  38. It also said they pulled the car over to add the sugar and cream to the coffee. She wasn’t the driver so I find that hard to believe. And it wasn’t too hot to hold between her legs so the cup must of been doing the job it was suppose to be doing. It was when she tried to open the top, while the cup was still between her legs that it spilled. Maybe there should be a warning on the label not to open coffee when its between your legs.

  39. Janie Fillman says:

    Y’know, Aida, I have compassion for the woman but I personally would not sue anyone if I spilled a cup of coffee on myself they gave me; even if you gave it to me. I would also get the heck out of the car! At any rate, it’s all old news and we all have other fish in the kettle.

  40. Janie Fillman says:

    OOPS! Forgot to thank you RWA for updating me.

  41. Don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but just a note on coffee brewing temperatures… The ideal temperature is 200 degrees F plus or minus about 5 degrees. (See http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm.) This is apparently to extract 20% of the solids from the grounds for best flavor. To let the coffee cool before serving would no doubt create many customer complaints. And what happened to adding creamer and sugar before you leave the building?

    Why do the call it “Common” sense, when apparently it’s so uncommon?

  42. To Bob: The McDonald’s lady had ordered the coffee at the drive through window and had her friend who was driving to pull over and stop the car so she could put sugar and creamer in the coffee. Seems she was using common sense when she did that, don’t you think? Her only “crime” was that she spilled the coffee taking the lid off the cup.

  43. Jeff Martin says:

    Again where does it make it McDonalds fault. Let’s make everyone feel bad for her so we can then sue McDonalds for serving coffee at the recommended temperature for optimal taste… The lid wasn’t her crime nor was spilling the coffee… The crime was extorting money for something she did herself with the full knowledge that COFFEE IS HOT…

  44. Her “crime” was she was holding it between her legs. Not where people with common sense typically keep hot beverages.

  45. Oh c`mon, Cheryl. Give the woman a break. Not everyone has a nice car with a cup holder, etc., so we don’t all have a place to put our cup of coffee when we’re in the passenger seat of a car.

  46. There you have it. She should of sued the car manufacturer. Had she had a cup holder, this could of been prevented.

  47. Aida, that is a ridiculous statement. That wouldn’t make McDonald’s responsible, that only puts the responsibility more on her. The only reason why McDonald’s should have any responsibility in this is because they were negligent towards the other 700 hot coffee burn claims; if people are getting seriously burned from this at a rate much higher than other places, they should have acted. Also, the other claimants before this woman should have gotten a chunk of the almost 700,000 (after appeals, reduced from 2+ mil) payout.

  48. Jeff Martin says:

    Aida, you’re not gonna win with people who have common sense. The only reason she got money is cause her attorney did a good job of putting people like you on the jury. Through continueing to argue you are corfirming that it was her fault. Now it’s McDonalds fault cause she doesn’t have a nice cup holder in her car. I read the case over and over… Take the bleeding heart feelings out of it and use some logic and common sense. It’s like sueing Ford cause they made the car that some drunk used to run over a kid, or Smith & Wesson cause a junky used a 9MM in a robbery where someone got shot. When you purchase something you assume the responsibilty to use it safely and morally and take responsibilty for it while it is in your possession (on your person). She bought the coffee and put it between her legs… Not the smartest thing to do when it is hot. Open the sugar and cream before you add it and keep one hand on the cup at all times. It’s called being smart.

  49. Give me a break, people! I *never* said this was the car company’s fault for not having a cup holder. Now you’re all using sarcasm when you don’t have a valid argument, and that’s just petty. This forum is not the place for such childish arguments.

  50. Jeff Martin says:

    RWA, not jumping on you here but BK, Wendy’s, Starbucks and others serve their coffee at the same temp and some were noted to be hotter. McDonalds was not negligent in dealing with the other 700 cases. They dealt with them the way they should have. There shouldn’t have been 700 other cases, these cases should never have seen the light of day… Nobody should have gotten money for these cases. Doesn’t matter how you spilled the coffee, YOU (generalization) still spilled the coffee making YOU responsible for your own burns. The Disclaimer is on the cup telling us it’s HOT. We are in such a mess in this country cause everyone wants something for nothing. “He looked at me cross wise, well sue him for mental anguish”. If I can cry and whine enough I can make it seem likes it’s someone else’s fault. Is this what we teach our children? I teach my kids to do what is right at all costs and this isn’t right…

  51. Jeff Martin says:

    Aida you are missing the point. We didn’t say that you were blaming the car company. You are trying to find every little ridiculous excuse to justify getting money for something money shouldn’t be paid for… I feel bad she got hurt. We play on people’s emotions to get what we want and that’s called selfishness… It’s called taking something that’s not yours and that’s stealing. And stealing is a crime.

  52. HOW DID WE GET SO OFF OF THE ORIGINAL TOPIC???
    This is about the WC claim for an employee injury at a health club. NOT about the McDonalds Case!

  53. We got side tracked with accountability, responsibility and ownership of your actions. I believe both cases are very close on these subjects.

  54. Give me a break, Jeff. It is a big stretch for you to call that case stealing. As I said before, when you ran out of valid points, you make baseless arguments to support your point. Stealing? Seriously?

    As Evelyn said, let’s quit talking about the McDonald’s case. This topic is about an employee injury at a health club. Leave it alone.

  55. Mac Maclaren says:

    It is not, as I stated a week ago, about ‘…an employee injury at a health club.’ It is about a person injured during work hours, whilst performing one of his employer-assigned tasks. The worker is covered by Worker’s Compensation. It’s that simple. All of the rest is ‘eye wash’ (as we say here in the West Texas oil patch ).

    If you doubt it – go read the decision carefully. By the way, if you DO read it carefully, there is a one-word error that could cause someone to appeal. Whether or not it would stand is another question, entirely. Can you find the word?

  56. Aida, once again you miss the true point. I know my parents taught me and I taught my children; you (generalized to mean each person) are responsible for your own actions, not the people or businesses around you, but you. In both cases, we are discussing responsibility for an action. Would you sue Taco Bell if their hot sauce, which many love, is too hot and burns your tounge? Wouldn’t it be your responsibility to know if it says hot, it means hot?

  57. Sorry all, I did misspell tongue!!

  58. Jeff Martin says:

    I think I made my point very well, Aida. And you have made your point. Your point makes no sense but you made it. But I guess if I lit a cigarette in my car with a Zippo and I drop the Zippo on the seat between my legs and it caught my seat on fire burning my crotch you would support me sueing Zippo??? I’d put you on the jury for that case if I was the one sueing cause apparently I wouldn’t have any responsibility in it. Heck, there’s no disclaimer on the lighter letting me know that it could burn me. Aida, you haven’t convinced anyone of your point and you are the reason that we are such a litigious society. The price of everything has to go up to cover such litigation. All so one person can sue for something they are ultimately responsible for. We have to agree to disagree… I agree with Cheryl though… The gym case wasn’t really about getting hurt in the gym but about where the responsibility lies…

  59. Aida,

    Are you that dense not to see the point everyone else is making of your comments? You accuse Jeff of making unsubstantiated comments, while you yourself are doing the same exact thing. All everyone is doing here is pointing out that, with enough of the ‘right’ wording, and the ‘right’ people on a jury, a lawyer can get any verdict for any case they want. It has nothing to do with truth and justice and plain old common sense any more nowadays. The comment about sueing the car company for not having a cup holder is just an example that he is using to show this.

    It’s a shame that our country and legal system has come to the “match play” of two lawyers, and whichever one can play the game better wins, no matter which side would be deemed as logically, morally, socially, or legally ‘correct’.

  60. Jeff, you only think my point did not make sense because you disagree with it. You all misunderstand me. I hate frivolous lawsuits. But the McDonald’s case was NOT a frivolous lawsuit. The restaurant sold her coffee which was TOO HOT. Spilling hot coffee on yourself should not cause one to burn oneself so bad that you need skin grafts.

    Because of that, it was a case about a defective product, i.e., coffee that was dangerously hot. Surely you understand that point. If your Zippo lighter was defective and blew up in your face and burned you badly enough to need skin grafts, would you call yourself stupid? And Janie, Taco Bell does not heat up their Hot Sauce, so your analogy is faulty. If it had too many Scoville units (the “heat” that makes jalapenos hot) than what you were used to, that would not constitute a lawsuit, because I seriously doubt you would need skin grafts from Taco Bell Hot Sauce.

    I am not, and I repeat, NOT the reason we have a litiguous society. I just believe that there are cases where someone can be sold a defective product, and does not deserve to be injured so horribly.

    But hey, if you guys think it’s okay to disfigure someone THAT badly because it was her own fault, then fine, think whatever you like. I just hope no one in your family ever has to go through what that poor woman had to.

  61. Well said Jeff!

  62. Sorry Aida I repectfully disagree that hot coffee is a defective product. It may be if it is used incorrectly, like in your lap for example, but if used correctly, its safe. Coffee is suppose to be hot. It only becomes dangerous when you use it incorrectly. You can make that case for anything; A car, a gun, a chemical, perscription medication, vitamins, anything can be used incorrected and become dangerous. The same rule applies.

  63. Aida, I agree my analogy was faulty in a sense. However, I made it because it was, just as I feel you saying McDonald sold “faulty coffee”. The problem was holding it between her legs; the sweat pants holding it next to her skin is what caused her to burn. I actually have spilled McDonalds coffee on myself in the past and DID NOT receive ANY burns; it was hot, but coffee is supposed to be hot! If you spill soup I serve you and get a burn, will you sue? If so, I would think you don’t eat or drink anywhere but your own home; that would keep everything luke warm and safe, right? I still feel it was a frivoulous suit and the more I read, the stronger my opinion. The coffee did not burn anyones mouth; THAT would constitute coffee being too hot. Possibly she should now sue the manufacturer of the sweat pants as they helped create the problem…. Yes, that too would be frivolous!

  64. Jeff Martin says:

    Aida,
    Please know that it is a scientific fact that liquids above 120 degrees cause damage to the skin. That coffee wasn’t served at a temp that was too hot. Thus not making it defective. Coffee is always served at that temp. Every place in the free world serves their coffee at or above 180 degrees. So the coffee wasn’t defective. Any liquid at 180 degrees or above, if sat in for a period of 90 seconds, will cause 3rd degree burns. I don’t want her to be disfigured but it WAS her fault. On a personal note… My brother lost his hand due to the negligence of a mining supervisor. Without getting into too many details, I stood there and watched as my brother was disfigured for life, not a da*# skingraft a loss of his hand… I watched my parents pray and we stood as a family and took care of our own. My parents could’ve sued the pants off them and according to you rightfully so. If anyone had the right to point fingers it was my parents. They didn’t do that… They did what was right. My brother was hurt due to anothers negligence not his own. I’m sorry but putting coffee between your legs you assume a certain risk and any accident because of that is due to your own negligence. So please, she sued cause people like you encouraged her and she won cause people like you were on her jury. Again, this case should never have seen the light of day…

  65. Well put again, Jeff!

  66. I don’t have time to read any more of this, I have to go read my new ladder.

  67. Simple, the employer by actions and incentive made his excercise program at that gym oart of his couse and scope of his employment. hense that lose and pay

Speak Your Mind

*