Feeds

back to article Workers' comp covers sex-related injuries, judge rules

Injuries sustained while having sex on a work trip are covered by workers' compensation, an Australian federal judge has ruled. The ruling accepted that the nookie-related injury sustained by a government employee on a business trip occurred during "the course of employment", overturning an earlier rejection of the woman's claim …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Australia!

The same country that gives sex lessons to miners, on the grounds that if they are happier at home, they will be more focused on their job and less likely to make a dangerous mistake.

This here is the Wattle

Emblem of our land

You can stick it in a bottle

Or hold it in your hand

AUSTRALIA!

2
0
Coat

Re: Australia!

"The same country that gives sex lessons to miners..."

Surely if they are old enough to work in the mines, they shouldn't need sex lessons. Or are Aussie mine workers lacking in nookie related didactic dilligence?

2
0
Gimp

Re: Australia!

there's always more to learn :)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

More to learn

Beyond "Brace yerself Sheila!"

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Playmobil reconstruction, please

No wonder things fall down there easily, they have to be pretty well attached to stay upside down

4
0

What a strange decision.

Shouldn't the hotel be liable for the injuries due to its fittings not being so fitted, rather than having to claim from the employer? Or is this about missed wages being paid whilst unable to work due to sickness? Either way, I would expect the hotel to be the ones claimed against by either the employee, employer or both.

As for "psychological injuries" why? Of course being injured isn't pleasant but if she dropped something on your foot at work would she suffer from "psychological injuries" also?

8
0

Re: What a strange decision.

It may well be the Hotels fault, but the woman was insured. So it is her insurance companies job to recover damages from the hotel or it's insurer.

I guess dropping something on your foot is potentially not as pyschologically damaging as having something fall on you unexpectedly whilst your mind is presumably in a busy and happy place.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Def
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: does this mean...

No, because you're bragging about cheating on your wife on an IT news website.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: does this mean...

.. although I'd consider the likelihood that this is just a fantasy rather high.. :)

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: does this mean...

Not least because he's hanging about in the comments section of an IT news website.

0
0
Terminator

Australia?

You mean the idiocracy has carried over from the US to the remote reaches of the Outback? God help us all. Where's a terminator when you need one...

0
3
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

So does this only apply to govnment employees, then?

"Hard at work" wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Though I don't know how one can possibly claim monies for psychological distress if hearty rumpy pumpy results in a collision with a descending illuminatory device.

3
0
Coat

Oh how did you not write...

Workers' comp covers sex romp?

I've already got it....

6
1
Joke

The sex robot testers union approve

The sex robot testers union approve

2
0
Bronze badge

I can't find fault with the judge's logic, but it still seems like an overly broad definition of work-related is being used. Does this mean the employer is responsible for the entirety of what happens during a job-related trip? That just seems extreme. Or is it something more specific, like because they selected the lodgings?

2
0

What insanity

Educated and clueless.

0
0
Bronze badge
Trollface

"[being] injured playing cards in her hotel room [...] and being hurt while having sex is no different."

Then you're doing it wrong...

3
0
Silver badge
Happy

Then you're doing it wrong...

Or your playing cards right.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Sex the same as playing cards

I wish someone had told me that decades ago. Life would have been so much simpler.

2
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Sex the same as playing cards

Yes it is-

Poker and brag.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Seriously?

"the un-named female claimant - who worked for the Human Relations Section "

I mean, SERIOUSLY ?

2
0
Gold badge
Coat

Ah, that's why they call it

.. down under ..

The one with the poker cards, ta.

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Precedent?

It seems somewhat illogical to me that a wonky light fitting is the responsibility of the employer, rather than the hotel. Job-related or otherwise, it is on somebody else's premises.

What concerns me more, however, is the potential precedent that this might raise. If it has been ruled that having sex with a colleague/friend in a hotel room can be counted as a normal occurrence under the remit of "work" because she was on a business trip, does this not suggest that it would be equally acceptable to have nookie in the photocopier room?

Alternatively, if your employer is liable, does this give him rights to control what you do and how you behave when on business trips, even when not on waged time?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Precedent?

So on an Australian business trip I could, after the days disussions are done, abseil down the side of the hotel with bedsteads knotted together? And if I injured myself the company would cover the sick pay?

0
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: Precedent?

If you can knot a bedstead or two, then I think the story is much more interesting than simply an insurance question...

0
0

Let's get legal

I really don't know the laws in Australia, but my guess here is that work related injuries are treted differently from "normal" injuries. In respect of lost pay, etc.

In Spain you get about 85% ill-pay for a normal illness, and you don't get any money for the first two days. But if it is work related, you get 100% (as it should be), and you don't get the money from social security, but from the company mutual. And all "in itinere" injuries are considered work related, so if you get injured while travelling, it is a work injury.

Mu guess is that the laws in Australia are somewhat similar.. so yes, it is work related, as she was not at home on a work trip!!

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

So presumably

I can see the next claim being, "while fixing a ticket in the cruiser the claimant suffered psychological distress and physical injury when the ticketee bit down hard on claimant's todger after claimant accidentally kicked on the siren".

Seriously though, does this mean STDs now fall under workers comp and not medical? Damn medical insurance companies seem to get out from under everything these days.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

10-1

10-1 odds this gets over-turned. Workman's comp requires you to actually be on the job site, not in bed - unless you're a porn star.

0
0
Facepalm

inevitable result

We'll now all be subject to H&S training material on the dangers of sex on work trips. Presumably I'll have to sign a certificate promising not to engage in activities (I can add it to my course certificate promising not to engage in human trafficking...).

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Ambulance Chasers ahoy...

Do you work with Vibrating hand tools? Have you suffered a work related injury?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Maybe the judge was getting some from the plantiff?

It would be very interesting to see how the judge could stretch workmans comp to cover non-work related sex and light fixtures falling on the playmates head.

0
0
Holmes

Re: Maybe the judge was getting some from the plantiff?

It's simple really. The worker was domiciled at a lodging chosen by her employer whilst away from hoem on work-related purposes. Anything that happens to the worker during that period is covered by the company's compulsory workers compensation/workcover insurance.

She could also separately sue the hotel for not adequately maintaining their light fixtures. To be honest, I don't know why this even went to court. Seems a pretty clear cut case of workers comp to me.

It doesn't matter what she was doing provided it happened in the 'normal course of events' ie not a high risk activity. So, no, abseiling down the hotel wall with tied together bedsheets (as a previous poster suggested) would not be covered due to the 'you're a dickhead' clause.

ps IANAL, YMMV

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Maybe the judge was getting some from the plantiff?

Yes it is simple... Workman Comp only covers on-the-job incidents. Sorry that's reality. It's foolish to even suggest that off-site incidents would be covered when it has nothing to do with work or the job. That's what personal and liability insurance is for. They should be suing the hotel, not trying to use Workman's Comp. which clearly does not cover this incident.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.