Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Worker dies from drinking windshield fluid in a vodka bottle; employer liable and pays out $218K


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:34 PM

http://news.national...n-vodka-bottle/

TLDR: Worker at a liquor distribution plant steals a bottle of "vodka" (actual contents: windshield wiper fluid), drinks 1.5L of it over 2 days, dies. Employers fined by Ontario Ministry of Labour for workplace safety violations for $218,000.

Also TLDR: Darwin winner of 2013. Never knew windshield fluid tasted so much like Smirnoff.


Spoiler

  • 0

#2 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:39 PM

*
POPULAR

For those that aren't aware, Brampton is to Toronto what Surrey is to Vancouver,
  • 7
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#3 *VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*

*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*

    Lul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,939 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 09

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:55 PM

Like what was mentioned above

How the hell can you not tell the difference between Vodka and windshield washer fluid
  • 0

Posted Image

^Vintage Canuck^

CDC STHS Hockey League Commissioner

CDC STHS Tampa Bay Lightning


#4 c00kies

c00kies

    Cookie Monster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,582 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:13 AM

Like what was mentioned above

How the hell can you not tell the difference between Vodka and windshield washer fluid


If you were 14 or younger maybe, but not grown men, that's for sure.
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to Blueberries for the sig :)

#5 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:20 AM

Bizarre.
  • 0

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#6 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:00 AM

Well.... Smirnoff does taste like crap.... lol
  • 0

#7 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:35 AM

So if I stole money and dropped some, and slipped on it and broke my neck, should the person I stole the money be liable for it?
Unreal.
  • 1

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#8 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,065 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:08 AM

For those that aren't aware, Brampton is to Toronto what Surrey is to Vancouver,

:lol:

+1 for truth.
  • 0

#9 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:38 PM

So if I stole money and dropped some, and slipped on it and broke my neck, should the person I stole the money be liable for it?
Unreal.


Lets look at it this way. Say I start working at this place, I am there for two weeks washing trucks, and then another new employee joins the crew. After a hard day's work I notice the vodka bottle in the truck, I take it out and give it to the (even newer) employee, I say something along the lines of 'good work today, here, take this home, no one will mind'. Now I would be the one stealing, but this poor other guy would potentially be poisoned and killed (if he mixed it with cola he may not have noticed the taste). Now it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that one employee does not get killed due to the stupid decision of another employee, remember that as the 'bad guy' in this example I may be incredibly stupid, may not care at all, may be intentionally trying to hurt this person, may be mentally ill, in other words, I can't be expected to look out for the other employee's best interests, so the employer themselves must fulfill that role. If the other guy was never informed that poison is kept in the vodka bottles, it wouldn't be his fault.

So I don't think they fined the company because they are worried about what happened (which was the worker being a thief and being stupid), but because a situation like I described above could have happened just as easily, and that is a problem, a potentially lethal one.

So you cannot use the argument that if he wouldn't have stolen the bottle it wouldn't have happened, it could have easily still happened.
  • 0
Posted Image

#10 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,544 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:31 PM

I don't feel sorry for these two morons
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#11 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,210 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:01 PM

There was just a whole load of stupid going on in that story.
  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#12 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:06 PM

Lets look at it this way. Say I start working at this place, I am there for two weeks washing trucks, and then another new employee joins the crew. After a hard day's work I notice the vodka bottle in the truck, I take it out and give it to the (even newer) employee, I say something along the lines of 'good work today, here, take this home, no one will mind'. Now I would be the one stealing, but this poor other guy would potentially be poisoned and killed (if he mixed it with cola he may not have noticed the taste). Now it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that one employee does not get killed due to the stupid decision of another employee, remember that as the 'bad guy' in this example I may be incredibly stupid, may not care at all, may be intentionally trying to hurt this person, may be mentally ill, in other words, I can't be expected to look out for the other employee's best interests, so the employer themselves must fulfill that role. If the other guy was never informed that poison is kept in the vodka bottles, it wouldn't be his fault.

So I don't think they fined the company because they are worried about what happened (which was the worker being a thief and being stupid), but because a situation like I described above could have happened just as easily, and that is a problem, a potentially lethal one.

So you cannot use the argument that if he wouldn't have stolen the bottle it wouldn't have happened, it could have easily still happened.


The THIEF is still the one responsible.

I think this is far less morally objectionable than leaving an open pan of antifreeze for cats to drink. The human should know far better.
  • 1

#13 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:09 PM

So if you keep antifreeze/cleaning fluid/windshield fluid/rubbing alcohol in an empty old bottle of Smirnoff's in your own home, it gets B&E'ed and the thief drinks it and dies, are you liable?
  • 1

#14 sakage.shinga

sakage.shinga

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:27 PM

I was told when I first moved to Canada that if someone broke into my home and I was forced to defend myself and the perp in question sustained injuries, that it was my responsibility to patch up his wounds and to stay with him until the police + ambulance arrived.

Clearly that was someone making a dumb joke, no?
  • 1
Posted Image

#15 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:11 PM

how can such moronic poeple (not the guys who drank the stuff the person or persons ruling in favor of them) be able to be in such a position of power. no wonder our Justice system is flawed when we have people with no common sense making the final ruling.
  • 0

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#16 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:14 AM

I was told when I first moved to Canada that if someone broke into my home and I was forced to defend myself and the perp in question sustained injuries, that it was my responsibility to patch up his wounds and to stay with him until the police + ambulance arrived.

Clearly that was someone making a dumb joke, no?


IIRC, once someone entered your property, they're your "guest", thus as a homeowner you gotta make sure it's not dangerous something when they're on your premises. Whether they're wanted guests or not is irrelevant. Occupier's Liability Act.

So if a thief breaks in, grabs your laptop to run, but steps on Fido's chew toy on the stairs, falls down and break his/her leg... you're liable for having a home that's "unsafe".
If you beat up a burglar in your home, you're at fault too. I think unless you initially told the person to leave your property and the guy resisted, in turn you used the "appropriate" amount of force where the thief got injured... I think that's ok though.

Of course, I have heard that it's easier to just shoot the thief in the head, then proceed to place a knife in the hand of the corpse and say you had to defend yourself against a knife-wielding attacker. The dead perp won't be pressing changes against you.
Not sure if that person was serious though, lol.
  • 0

#17 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:00 AM

IIRC, once someone entered your property, they're your "guest", thus as a homeowner you gotta make sure it's not dangerous something when they're on your premises. Whether they're wanted guests or not is irrelevant. Occupier's Liability Act.

So if a thief breaks in, grabs your laptop to run, but steps on Fido's chew toy on the stairs, falls down and break his/her leg... you're liable for having a home that's "unsafe".
If you beat up a burglar in your home, you're at fault too. I think unless you initially told the person to leave your property and the guy resisted, in turn you used the "appropriate" amount of force where the thief got injured... I think that's ok though.

Of course, I have heard that it's easier to just shoot the thief in the head, then proceed to place a knife in the hand of the corpse and say you had to defend yourself against a knife-wielding attacker. The dead perp won't be pressing changes against you.
Not sure if that person was serious though, lol.


Who makes these laws??????
  • 0

#18 Stefan

Stefan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:02 AM

Lets look at it this way. Say I start working at this place, I am there for two weeks washing trucks, and then another new employee joins the crew. After a hard day's work I notice the vodka bottle in the truck, I take it out and give it to the (even newer) employee, I say something along the lines of 'good work today, here, take this home, no one will mind'. Now I would be the one stealing, but this poor other guy would potentially be poisoned and killed (if he mixed it with cola he may not have noticed the taste). Now it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that one employee does not get killed due to the stupid decision of another employee, remember that as the 'bad guy' in this example I may be incredibly stupid, may not care at all, may be intentionally trying to hurt this person, may be mentally ill, in other words, I can't be expected to look out for the other employee's best interests, so the employer themselves must fulfill that role. If the other guy was never informed that poison is kept in the vodka bottles, it wouldn't be his fault.

So I don't think they fined the company because they are worried about what happened (which was the worker being a thief and being stupid), but because a situation like I described above could have happened just as easily, and that is a problem, a potentially lethal one.

So you cannot use the argument that if he wouldn't have stolen the bottle it wouldn't have happened, it could have easily still happened.

Although I still disagree with you, that's not how the story went.
You could look at it plenty of other ways, it wouldn't change what actually happened.

How about this.
Lets look at it this way. The employer has a legally owned pistol in his desk. A worker decides to check through his desk, finds it and shows it off to his co workers.
The gun discharges, killing one of them.
Is this the employers fault?
Is there a law that says you can't keep whatever the hell you want in whatever bottle?
  • 0

gallery_9059_470_12899.jpg


(1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.



 

#19 sakage.shinga

sakage.shinga

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 10

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

IIRC, once someone entered your property, they're your "guest", thus as a homeowner you gotta make sure it's not dangerous something when they're on your premises. Whether they're wanted guests or not is irrelevant. Occupier's Liability Act.

So if a thief breaks in, grabs your laptop to run, but steps on Fido's chew toy on the stairs, falls down and break his/her leg... you're liable for having a home that's "unsafe".
If you beat up a burglar in your home, you're at fault too. I think unless you initially told the person to leave your property and the guy resisted, in turn you used the "appropriate" amount of force where the thief got injured... I think that's ok though.

Of course, I have heard that it's easier to just shoot the thief in the head, then proceed to place a knife in the hand of the corpse and say you had to defend yourself against a knife-wielding attacker. The dead perp won't be pressing changes against you.
Not sure if that person was serious though, lol.


I bet the idiot that wrote this law has never had his/her home broken into and personally knows of no such occurences, either. It's not like I will ever "invite" the thief into my home, right? Maybe I should post up a sign that says "thieves & burglars not welcome"
  • 0
Posted Image

#20 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,985 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:12 PM

The employer should be given a medal for weeding out an idiot from society.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.