At first blush, the suit for falling may have been morally (or otherwise) reprehensible.  I dunno.  But, the legalities are a Gordian knot of ... well, whatever.

You remember the Fireman's Rule from first-year torts, maybe dimly or maybe not.  It says, in short, that when a fireman goes into a burning building and gets hurt, his remedy is limited to workers' comp because he knew what he was getting into.  It's sort of a corollary of  "assumption of risk" doctrine, but because of analytical issues not germane here, don't call it that, OK?

The Firemans' Rule over the years grew so many exceptions, lacunae, fictions and inanities* that some states just threw up their hands and legislatively abolished it, or even provided a civil action for emergency workers supplementing, or replacing, or aligned with workers' comp.

[* Stuff like:  Who's covered by the rule, when, what for, are volunteer firefighters covered or not, what about taking the fire truck to the supermarket (to get food for the firehouse)?, the cop who gets food poisoning from the "complemenary" hot dog or apple from the street vendor, and so on ad infinitum. ]

The problem is, workers' comp is a woefully inadequate remedy.  The same [bad enough you wouldn't wish it on Rush] back injury that might get anyone $50,000 or so in a tort suit, might only yield the injured worker $10,000 or so through comp (these are rough numbers merely presented to show the disparity - every case is unique).  And then, there's the issue of whether the injury is truly compensible.  Because the workers' comp system is an administrative, rather than adversarial system, the insurance companies which provide coverage (and run the WC Courts like puppeteers) have every incentive to, and do, delay payout.  In some states, a WC claimant does not even have subpoena power to get documents and information, let alone to force the carrier to proceed.  (sound familiar?) So, sometimes you wind up with lawsuits brought more to empower the claimant to get subpoenas issued and responded to for discovery (and the ability to file motions and get orders to compel full, complete and truthful responses) than anything else.  

Then, there's the whole issue of the comp and, lately, Medicare and Medicaid, liens.  Bushie farmed out the processing of Medicare liens to some contractor which has managed to put major kinks in the money hose, all to cut down on payouts. (Read the whole article....) This, because no lawyer is going to complete paying out until all the liens are addressed, even assuming the insurance companies will come up with the money before the Medicare/Medicaid liens are resolved.  Some people die waiting for their money.

So, beyond the surficial reprehensibility of alleged greed, there are a lot of good reasons for the injured cop to sue for slipping and falling.  

  The city's disability program and the state worker's comp system really should  have nothing to do with assessing the "legitmacy" of a third-party lawsuit. Other than  the state law pertaining to the collateral source rule and offset of damages, they should be considered irrelevant. The fact an injured party is eligible for and receives benefits through his employment for an on-the-job injury should not relieve a third-party (one other than the employer)of liability for his negligence causing injury.

 If you invite someone into your home to perform a service the fact he is covered by disability insurance and/or WC does not mean you cannot be liable for damages if he is injured because you failed to use due care to correct or warn of an unsafe condition.

  In this specific case, however, it is a stretch to argue that the homeowner here failed to use due care if the water in which the cop slipped is water tracked in during an emergency situation and the slip occurred soon after. Due care means "reasonable" care under the circumstances and it is likely a fact-finder would consider it reasonable not to have mopped up the water that dripped from the child and rescuers.

  But, let's say a cop came to your house to take a statement regarding a complaint you filed and because you had failed to fix the front steps for many months he stepped through  rotten wood that was not readily visible upon normal observation and was seriously injured. in that case, the fact the cop would be covered by the same disability and WC programs as this cop would not likely cause many people to say it is wrong to seek damages from the homeowner.

But I would have thought the cop would have first sued the city for actual damages.

It makes me wonder how the cops medical plans are different from the fire departments.

Firemen are covered for slip and fall but not for crazed mentally ill attacks?  Cops are covered for crazed mentally ill attacks but not for slip and fall?

  The immunity does not extend to third-parties (persons other than the employer).

As morally and socially despicable as the cop's (and her lawyer's) suit is, I can imagine where she is coming from. It looks to me that she is getting screwed by her employer. It's unconscionable to put a cop on the street and not have them 100% covered if they are hurt on the job.

If the Cosmillos had made their pool baby-proof, police would not have been called to the scene, there would have been no water on the floor, and Eichhorn would not have hurt herself, he said.

"It's a situation where the Cosmillos have caused these problems, brought them on themselves, then tried to play the victim," he said.

Florida has a law requiring pools built after 2001 or so to have various safety devices, if this pool is one of them and did not have those devices, I imagine the law suit would have more legal and moral heft.

Then again, maybe not.

Two cars get in an accident because one of the drivers did something wrong. Happens every day.

A cop/ambulance guy/whatever responding to the scene slips on the radiator fluid and wrenches his back.

Does he now get to sue the at-fault driver (Ok, the at-fault driver's insurance co.)?

  I'd also assume the lawyer assumed the insurance company would make a cost of defense settlement offer in exchange for a release of claims against  the insured and the insurer and he'd make a modest fee for relatively little work.

  The homeowners might also be concerned that there premiums will increase.

am i at risk of being sued by this officer, because i failed to clean up an obvious hazard, prior to contacting them? bearing in mind, had i done so, i would have also been guilty of destroying potential evidence, and disturbing a crime scene.

certainly, a pool of blood on the kitchen floor is an obvious hazard, that any "reasonable and prudent" person would realize should be cleaned up, prior to inviting anyone into their home.

sorry, i just don't buy into the "rationale" for this. if the job is so dangerous, as policemen are always claiming it is, this hazard is just part of the normal occupational risk they accept, when they sign up.

  As for suing third=-party foreign actors for alleged wrongs committed on and having their effect occur foreign soil  I think there would be a likely juridictional problem in any U.S. federal or state court. (I also tend to doubt that suing the foreign actors where they reside or where the alleged tort occurred would be fruitful, but that is not based on any analysis of the principles of liability.)