Comments on: Women wins 2 mil after getting hurt at team-building event

By: Traslia

Traslia — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:03:52 +0000

The FACTS are this woman was NOT drunk. The company encouraged all employees to participate, a required “team building” exercise. The employee Giles was wearing a helmut that was put on her by employees at the resort. The helmet was too large for her head and when she fell the helmet fractured her skull.

The employee was a very well educated, well paid employee with a strong career. She has been permanently disabled and unable to work since this occurred, still suffers physical and mental impairment including seizures.

Too much money for losing your livelihood, your job, your home, your health? How would you survive after this? I’m sure all of you would have also used the legal system to make sure you were compensated for others mistakes. That’s why the jury found the manufacturer liable for the damages. The helmets were (and are) dangerous and don’t protect you.

Some of you are just ignorant jerks.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:13:48 +0000

Find a copy of Horn’s “Supervisors Factomatic.” Though I like a beer now and then, one of the many hints this book contained when I first read it 30 years ago was, “don’t drink at company functions.”

Just one of many common-sense take-aways that have helped my long and fruitful career.

By: Lori

Lori — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:00:54 +0000

I had to travel for business about 5 years ago to do training for our sales managers. I was a new female HR Manager and wanted to fit in, and the sales managers were buying me shot after shot at a team-building dinner. I tried saying no to the drinks several times but they kept calling me a “party pooper” and egging me on to drink the shots with them. I rarely ever drink, so the shots impacted me very quickly. I ended up falling down, cracking open my head, and having 12 stapes in my head in the emergency room. The company treated me like an outcast and a terrible person after this event, but the Sales Managers didn’t have a bad word said about them. Alcohol and business events NEVER work well together and companies should have policies banning this from occurring.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:15:36 +0000

Anytime you have stupid “Team Building” activities that include physical activities someone might get hurt. How do Sumo Wrestling, Fish Throwing, playing Paint Ball and Ropes Courses really build team work?? They DON’T. They are an illusion designed by people who want to make a buck and sell it to uninformed HR managers and CEOs. The company should pay – maybe this will be a warning to other companies not to do this stuff.

By: Maggie Mentel

Maggie Mentel — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:29:09 +0000

I sent this to my husband knowing that managment employees at his firm were going to do just the same team building activity. They went ahead with it even though they had this information. The plant manager suffered a minor concussion when he hit his head with the helmet on! He was unable to attend the dinner after this activity and looked sick and pale the next day at work.

This is just stupidity. The plant manager was afraid to do the paint ball thing because someone might get hurt!

By: Cari

Cari — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:36:05 +0000

Maybe she had too much to drink or maybe she didn’t. It really doesn’t matter. The company should have had the foresight to see that mixing alcohol with the sumo activity was a risk. When I was with a large optical chain several years ago, we had a team building event with MANY strenuous activities involved. Many of the employees participated, even though they did not want to, because they feared retribution if they were not team players. Needless to say, it was a sight at the airport, you could pick out the employees from the wheelchairs, crutches and bandages.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:52:58 +0000

Continuing the lack of accountability I see from court decisions and the vulnerability of deep pockets.
The employer (E&Y) is liable for nearly anything coming out of a company sponsored activity. If no alcohol, it might have been limited to workers comp.
However, how did liability find it’s way to the resort? And a $2m cost to the virtually innocent manufacturer? Although this took place in Colorado, it sounds more like business-unfriendly California.
I suspect costume manufacturers will have to use disclaimers similar to those found on NFL football helmets.

By: dh

dh — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:50:37 +0000

I thought alcohol at company sponsored events went out the window years ago. Any of the companies that I have worked with for the past ten years do no allow alcohol at company sponsored events.
For a company such as Ernst and Young to have an open bar as part of their team building event was promoting the use of alcohol and was irresponsible to say the very least.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:29:00 +0000

What I find interesting is that people assume that she was intoxicated because there was alcohol served and that the sumo-suit company claimed that she was. No where in the article does it say that she indeed was drunk while sumo wrestling.
The article does mention that she suffered permanent damage as a result of the fall, but I don’t know that she should have went for the throat of three different entities. She deserved something for her injury but the $2 million may be little exorbitant.

By: Lilly

Lilly — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:47:28 +0000

Yup – the employer’s mistake was allowing alcohol to be served during this activity and their stupidity to not foresee what could have happened (that did). Now something that would’ve been a nice ‘perk’ will probably be discontinued, because the employer won’t take that kind of risk again.

Although none of this matters when it comes to employer responsibility, the real issues lie in the fact that the employee A) acted irresponsibly at a company related function, B) the company (or worker’s comp insurance) probably already paid her a settlement, and C) the fact that she went after anybody and everybody (companies with the money) shows that she/lawyers wanted to take advantage of the situation.

That the Ernst & Young didn’t foresee something like this is mind-boggling.