Australian Workers Compensation Sex Claim

[NBC]

Thought this was funny. Feel free to discuss.

Is a man or woman injured while having sex in their hotel room on a work trip entitled to a workers' compensation payout?

The case involved a woman who was sent on a work assignment to a country town by her employer, the Human Relations Section of the Commonwealth Government agency. In the course of her work stay, she had a sexual encounter with a male friend who lived in the country town.

According to the male friend's statement, they had raucous sex together and were rolling around when a light in a glass fitting came away from the wall. He was unclear if they bumped the light or it happened to fall off.

The woman subsequently brought a workers' compensation claim for the facial and psychological injuries that she suffered. An administrative court denied the claim holding that the injured party had to demonstrate that she was injured while taking part in an activity that was ''induced or encouraged'' by her employer.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...injury-120424/

[CaptainCrunch]

Unless she's a big fat ho and her boss is her pimp daddy, good luck with that.

I don't even think that ho's get Workers comp

Just stupid what people will try to do nowdays.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless she's a big fat ho and her boss is her pimp daddy, good luck with that.

I don't even think that ho's get Workers comp

Just stupid what people will try to do nowdays.

Umm, she won.

The rationale actually makes complete sense.

''if the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation.'' Her sexual activity in her motel room represented another form of lawful recreational activity

I'm not sure why an injury playing cards (severe paper cut I assume) would be covered, but if it would be it makes sense that this would be as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well that's just ######ed, I'm off to bone some bimbo on my lunch hour, I plan to blow out my back now.

[Rathji]

I am pretty sure this has been brought up somewhere here before, but I might be confused.

I think if they would cover her if she got hurt walking down the street to get a burger or watch a movie, then I think they should cover this.

[afc wimbledon]

Im with CC on this, why the hell should you get compo if you are not actually working, just because you are away on a course doesn't mean you are working 24 hours

[undercoverbrother]

there is no possible way to comment on this without seeing a picture of her first.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Im with CC on this, why the hell should you get compo if you are not actually working, just because you are away on a course doesn't mean you are working 24 hours

You are required to be away from home for work purposes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Im with CC on this, why the hell should you get compo if you are not actually working, just because you are away on a course doesn't mean you are working 24 hours

As Buff said, if your employer sends you somewhere you are considered working while you're stuck there. You're not there because you want to be there, you're there as an employee.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

As Buff said, if your employer sends you somewhere you are considered working while you're stuck there. You're not there because you want to be there, you're there as an employee.

I understand the reasoning I just think its crap, if I am away on a course from 4.30pm or so I am off work, doing whatever the hell I want, including questionable sexual liasons. She wasn't, presumably, being paid for 24 hours work, nor was she being supervised or told what to do.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I understand the reasoning I just think its crap, if I am away on a course from 4.30pm or so I am off work, doing whatever the hell I want, including questionable sexual liasons. She wasn't, presumably, being paid for 24 hours work, nor was she being supervised or told what to do.

She was being told to be in whatever location she was in, that's sufficient. She had given up at least some of her free will to do as she pleased in order to fulfill her professional responsibilities.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am pretty sure this has been brought up somewhere here before, but I might be confused.

I think if they would cover her if she got hurt walking down the street to get a burger or watch a movie, then I think they should cover this.

I remember reading about this in the Economist months ago, and I pretty sure it came up here too.
Otherwise, what valo said.

[CaptainCrunch]

So if I go on a conferance in lets say Las Vegas, because I'm there I book a skydiving lesson in my free time. The chute fails to open and I hit the ground at mach 5 breaking every bone in my body and it becomes a workers comp issue.

that to me is bizarre anti-logic

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if I go on a conferance in lets say Las Vegas, because I'm there I book a skydiving lesson in my free time. The chute fails to open and I hit the ground at mach 5 breaking every bone in my body and it becomes a workers comp issue.

that to me is bizarre anti-logic

Thoughts...

I believe the decision turned to some extent on the fact that fornication is a reasonably normal activity. I don't know that skydiving would be equally acceptable. The way I recall this is that they found that as long as the employee is engaged in a "normal" off-duty activity while on a "company mission", it would be covered by worker's comp. I think it all revolves around the interpretation of "normal" and "reasonable".

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Thoughts...

I believe the decision turned to some extent on the fact that fornication is a reasonably normal activity. I don't know that skydiving would be equally acceptable. The way I recall this is that they found that as long as the employee is engaged in a "normal" off-duty activity while on a "company mission", it would be covered by worker's comp. I think it all revolves around the interpretation of "normal" and "reasonable".

You are not married, are you Vlad?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if I go on a conferance in lets say Las Vegas, because I'm there I book a skydiving lesson in my free time. The chute fails to open and I hit the ground at mach 5 breaking every bone in my body and it becomes a workers comp issue.

that to me is bizarre anti-logic

If you were in this particular court and employed under the same conditions as this woman it seems it might, although you're probably pushing the limits to what is an expected occurrence for a business traveler. There is certainly a limit to what activities you can engage in before breaking off the employer/employee spectrum.

Look at the example the court used. There is absolutely no logical way you can tell me that someone should be covered for injuring themselves in their room playing cards but not while having sex. What's the difference? Both are 'recreational' activities taking place in a hotel room provided by the employer.

[CaptainCrunch]

So if I was in the hotel room, and I hired a prostitute and got a scorching case of VD, workers comp would have to cover the treatment.

Weet.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You are not married, are you Vlad?

Very married. Perhaps you have too many children.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if I was in the hotel room, and I hired a prostitute and got a scorching case of VD, workers comp would have to cover the treatment.

Weet.

Ho's probably wouldn't be covered, as I have little doubt the court would find that fornicating with a ho is an inherently risky activity. Sorry.

[troutman]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...s+compensation