I am now getting preached to by prospects and clients who think my careful, disciplined approach to emergency planning and training is old-fashioned, slow, and expensive.
“Bo, you’re an old dog who can’t learn new tricks. AI will have our workplace emergency assessment done today; our Emergency Action Plan done tomorrow; and our people trained the next day. Done!”
Let’s recall the wisdom of my Drill Sergeant on my first day of Basic Training in the U.S. Army, “For every complex problem, there’s a simple solution that’s always wrong.”
I have served as an expert consultant and witness in court from California to Florida and from Texas to Connecticut. I can directly report that, when you’re sued after any individual was injured or killed at your workplace, all of your assessments, plans, training materials, drills and exercises will be introduced as evidence at court. This is to establish whether you have met your duty of care to keep all personnel safe at your workplace: “each employer shall furnish …a place of employment …free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” [Federal law passed in 1970: 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)].
The negligence issues in any court: failure to plan and failure to train your Emergency Action Plan to employees, and the quality of your planning and training.
This is your case history for today in the real, not the artificial, world: Motions were made by a NYC law firm to a Manhattan federal district court that looked strange to the judge. The judge found that these lawyers had used AI. The judge determined that the facts were invented. The sources for the facts were invented. The precedents cited were invented. The sources for the precedents cited were invented.
The judge, in his published ruling, found 31 AI “hallucinations,” “stylistic and reasoning flaws,” and “gibberish” in the legal analysis.
Federal judges have established an open-source website where attorneys and judges can cite where AI has been used so that judges, litigants and defense attorneys can be warned of bogus legal work at court. More than 1,300 such AI incidents have been reported so far.
You do not want to be on this list.
One person I interviewed said, “It’s like being on the list of pedophiles. You can’t wash this off. Ever.”
In another interview, an expert said, “It turns out that AI is intelligence that’s artificial.”
Emergency Insight: If you have had an assessment, created a plan, or trained a plan in the last three years, cross-examine the author as to whether AI was used in part or in whole. If you are currently in the process of assessing, planning, and training, have your provider swear that no AI was used in whole or in part.
In either case, go all the way to have your planning, training, drills and exercises assessed today in the old-fashioned way.
As a practicing expert consultant and witness in court nationally, I can report that workplace injury and death lawsuits cost defendant employers between $5 million and $1 billion. This is because the emergency action plans, training, and exercises are given a thorough autopsy by plaintiff litigators that will crush the defendant employer. The use of AI, in whole or in part, will be prejudicial.
You do not want to be on that list. You do not want to suffer the fate of those attorneys.
Sidebar: Litigation-Proof Your Emergency Action Plan
When a workplace tragedy occurs, the emergency response is only the beginning. The legal battle that follows can expose every weakness in an organization's planning, training, and documentation. As a consultant and expert witness in workplace injury and fatality cases, I've seen verdicts and settlements ranging from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars when employers cannot demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care.
To strengthen both safety and legal defensibility, organizations should:
- Review emergency action plans annually and after every significant incident or exercise.
- Document all employee training, drills, attendance, and corrective actions.
- Validate plans through realistic, multidisciplinary exercises—not tabletop discussions alone.
- Ensure emergency procedures reflect actual operations, facility layouts, and workforce changes.
- Clearly assign responsibilities and maintain written records showing accountability.
- Independently review AI-generated plans or recommendations before implementation. AI can assist with drafting, but it should never replace professional judgment, regulatory compliance, or site-specific expertise.
- Engage qualified safety, security, and legal professionals to audit emergency preparedness on a regular basis.
In court, documented evidence of planning, training, testing, and continuous improvement often becomes the strongest defense an employer can present. Good documentation doesn't just support compliance—it demonstrates a sustained commitment to protecting employees.
About the Author
Bo Mitchell
President of 911 Consulting
Bo Mitchell is the President of 911 Consulting. He holds the following designated certifications: CEM, CPP, CHS-V, CBCP, CSI-ML, HSEEP, CSSAS, CNTA, IAC, MOAB, CHSP, CHEP, CSHM, CESCO, CHCM, CFC, CSSM, CSC, CAS, TFCT3, CERT, CHSEMR, CMC
Bo was a Police Commissioner of Wilton, CT for 16 years. He retired to found 911 Consulting, which creates emergency, disaster recovery, business continuity, crisis communications and pandemic plans, and training and exercises for organizations like GE HQ, Hyatt HQ, H&R Block HQ, MasterCard HQ, four colleges and universities, and 29 secondary schools. He serves clients headquartered from Boston to Los Angeles working in their facilities from London to San Francisco. Bo also serves as an expert in landmark court cases nationally.