I'm an idiot - compensate me!

[Blondin]

Does this p!ss anybody else off?
Court OKs Disability Pay for Horseplay Injury (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=1&u=/nm/20040116/od_nm/odd_horseplay_dc)
Yet more validation that we don't have to take resposibility for our own actions and 'deserve' to be compensated for the consequences of our own stupidity.

Oy!

[Jon_in_london]

Even The Onion couldnt think that one up!

Good Grief!

[Troll]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit???

Those guys aren't doing much for their track record

The dude in question and the court as mentioned are simply idiots. I know it's not the best of things to post. going for ad hominems ain't the strongest argument I could make. But what the heck is wrong with these idiots? The guy asked for it and betted upon it. He should assume responsibility for the freaking risks. I assume he does so everytime he steps into the shower where he may slip.

[Suddenly]

Is there a link to the opinion?


What I'm curious about is whether or not this guy was as part of his job supposed to maintain social relations with members of the armed forces and whatnot. Any decent buisnessman knows that in many circumstances you can make more money in the bar slapping backs than you can behind a desk...

If part of his job reflected that, then his merrymaking was in fact part of his job, so to speak, which makes the award apporpriate given the usual laws behind this sort of thing.

I mean, if I go to a bar looking for clues in a case, and in my judgment part of getting people there to commuicate with me involves tossing a few back and a silly bar bet, well, I think I'm still working and should still be covered by my comp insurance the same as if I was sitting at my desk researching.

It is possible there is more to this case than the three paragraph treatment reflects. Then again maybe not.

[Michael Redman]

It seems to me that the argument is that this is such an isolated location, that the entire experience is part of being on the job, kind of like being stationed on an off shore oil platform. It's a very different thing than a worker who lives in a city, and goes out to a local bar on his down time.

I'm not sure I would take it this far, but it's hard to tell. I would need to know a lot more about the case before I could write off the opinion as ridiculous.

[Number Six]

Shouldn't they deduct $100 from the amount the company has to pay him? After all, if the company hadn't send him there then he never would have won that $100 bet.

I thing the ruling is ridiculous. He may have had few recreational options and but that doesn't mean he should get compensated for doing absolutely anything. The guy made a bet that the soldier couldn't kick over his head, knowing that if the soldier couldn't do it he'd end up getting kicked in the head. I mean, come on, there has to be a point where the guy bears responsibility and entering into a bet with someone that involves them kicking near your head is past that point IMO. Isn't betting technichally ilegal anyway?

If the employers responsibility can be stretched that far then there will be a lot of things they can be "blamed" for. What if you get in a traffic accident driving to work when you work at a job where there is little housing nearby, which forces you to commute? Is the employer responsible? You could think of a hundred different scenarios.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It seems to me that the argument is that this is such an isolated location, that the entire experience is part of being on the job, kind of like being stationed on an off shore oil platform. It's a very different thing than a worker who lives in a city, and goes out to a local bar on his down time.

I'm not sure I would take it this far, but it's hard to tell. I would need to know a lot more about the case before I could write off the opinion as ridiculous.

Okay, how about these:

1. What if the only women at the isolated place they sent him too had VD and he caught it from them and he couldn't work? Could he get workers compensation?

2. What if he was married and went on the assignment and as a result of the separation his marriage broke up? Coud he sue his employer to have them pay the alimony for him?

3. What if he simply regrets taking the assignment and couldn't continue working because it made him emotionally distressed? Could he sue?

How about this...where is the line in the other direction...that is, he successfully sued for making a bet that involved the soldier kicking near his head. What if instead the bet was that he'd stand against a wall and soldier would throw knives and try to get close but not hit him? If the soldier messed up and hit the guy with the knife and the guy couldn't work as a result, could the guy get workers comp? Is there anything the guy could hurt himself doing that _wouldn't_ qualify him for workers comp for, and if so, what would it be?

[shuize]

9th Circuit. What do you expect?