Today's Doofus is from Australia.
A WOMAN injured while having sex in a motel room paid for by her employer deserved the same treatment as someone who had slipped in the shower or been bashed, her lawyer has argued.
Barrister Leo Grey told the Federal Court this morning that his case involving a public servant's fight for compensation after being injured during a night of passion, "wasn't about sex."
The federal government employee, who cannot be identified, was injured when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex with a man on November 26, 2007.
The light struck her in the face, leaving her with injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth, as well as "a consequent psychiatric injury", described as an adjustment disorder.
She claims entitlement to compensation because her injuries were caused "during the course of her employment", as she had been sent to a country town to stay the night ahead of a meeting early the next day.
. . .
The government's workplace safety body ComCare rejected her compensation claim, upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, finding the sexual activity "was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating".
In submissions filed to the court, the woman's lawyers have argued that being injured while having sex "during an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work" was no different to being hurt doing other recreational activities.
"Serious drinking and socialising may be regarded as a recreational activity, yet injuries resulting from those activities ... have been found to be compensable," her lawyers argue.
There's more at the link.
Y'know, if this lawsuit succeeds (and I sincerely hope it fails), it could lead to all sorts of complications. I mean . . . if the woman's lover doesn't satisfy her, can she sue for inadequate performance? And what about size? If he's not what she's expecting, think of the financial implications! Too big - poll tax! Too small - nuisance tax! When Federal bureaucrats get involved, who knows where this could end up?
Peter
On one hand.. what is the difference in her case between the lamp falling on her face while she was laying in bed, and the lamp falling on her face while she was getting laid in bed? Would the claim have been valid had she not been getting it on and the lamp fell anyway?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand.. why is this a workman's comp claim and not a lawsuit against the hotel for not attaching the lamp firmly to the wall?
Should fire her for Effing around on company time then.
ReplyDeleteI can see engineers now as they add a whole new line of torture tests for the mounting fixtures...
ReplyDelete