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 …
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!
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?
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
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?
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?
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!!
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.
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
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
