Sexual compensation

[Gob]

The lawyer representing a woman who was injured while she was having sex in a hotel room during a work trip in rural NSW says his client was undertaking "normal behaviour" akin to bathing or sleeping and is entitled to compensation.

The woman, a Commonwealth government employee whose name has been suppressed by the Federal Court, suffered injuries to her nose and mouth, as well as a psychiatric injury, when a light fitting attached to the wall of the hotel she was staying in fell on her head during sex.

The man in bed with her at the time has been described in court documents as "an acquaintance".


The woman's claim is based on the fact that she suffered the injuries "during the course of her employment", because she was required to travel to the country town and to stay overnight to attend a budget review meeting early the next day.

Her barrister, Leo Grey, argued in the Federal Court today that she was "induced or encouraged" by her employer to spend the night at the hotel where the incident occurred, and was thus entitled to compensation under workers' compensation laws.

The woman is appealing against a decision by Comcare, the federal government workplace safety body, upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found that sex was not an "ordinary activity" during an overnight stay.

But Mr Grey said the fact that his client was having sex had little to do with the case.

"This case ... is as much about slipping in the shower, or being beaten by a gang of thugs or being shot by a jealous rival," he said.

"[She] was sent to the town to a hotel that was selected by her particular department. She has been been encouraged to spend a particular period of employment at a particular place."

He said that, for the woman's employer to avoid paying compensation, it needed to have informed her that having sex while on a work trip was not appropriate behaviour, either by telling her explicitly or through a list of rules such as a code of conduct. He said there was no evidence that such a direction was made.

"Having sex is just one of those things [like eating or bathing]. It's not the 1920s, after all."

But the barrister for Comcare, Andrew Burger, said that there was not a sufficient degree of connection between the incident and what the woman was actually being employed to do.

He said compensation could only be paid if the woman's employer had "encouraged or induced" the woman to have sex, which was not the case.

"There's nothing about this that could have led the employer to reasonably conclude that this injury might occur," he said.

"If she was to hold a swingers' party, that isn't something that can be contemplated by the employer ... and neither is this."

Federal Court Justice John Nicholas will make a decision on the matter in the coming weeks.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/on-the-j ... z1TI9w0Q7Q

[The Hen]

Sexual congress was not something required by her employee in the same way no employee would have required her to drink and driving.

Have some personal responsibility PLEASE. In not all cases will you, or should you, receive money for injuries.

[Sue U]

Sexual congress was not something required by her employee in the same way no employee would have required her to drink and driving.

Have some personal responsibility PLEASE. In not all cases will you, or should you, receive money for injuries.

This has nothing to do with the employee's "personal responsibility." She wasn't injured by her choice to have sex. She was injured because "a light fitting attached to the wall of the hotel she was staying in fell on her head." That she was having sex at the time is completely immaterial; light fixtures should not fall off walls over beds (or wherever) in hotels. The fact that one did clearly bespeaks some element of negligence in the installation and/or maintenance of the fixture. She was at this particular place because the travel was fully within the course and scope of her employment. Workers comp should pay compensation for the injuries, and the compensation insurer/agency/whatever should seek reimbursement from the hotel. In that manner "personal responsibility" would be properly attached to the hotel operator for the unsafe condition of the property.

[Guinevere]

I have to say, I agree with Sue 100% on this one. The sex bit is a total red herring. In fact, it's not even relevant to the case -- unless she or her partner were swinging from the light fixtures.

[No Greater Fool]

I have to say, I agree with Sue 100% on this one. The sex bit is a total red herring. In fact, it's not even relevant to the case -- unless she or her partner were swinging from the light fixtures.

Now there's a mental image to conjure with!

[The Hen]

Was her employment a contributing factor in her injury? No. Therefore her claim is against the hotel and not her employer.

The employer had her travel somewhere to attend something and provided her accommodation. The accommodation was wanting and the hotel should be liable for her injury and not her employer.

This is not a workers compensation matter as outlined under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

[dgs49]

This is settled law in the U.S. She was out of town at the behest of her employer. Had she not been on a business trip, she would not have been injured.

The fact that she was having casual sex is titillating, but irrelevant. She might just as well have been sleeping in that bed, and would be just as injured.

An exception might be made if she had been doing something inherently dangerous - skydiving - but as her attorney pointed out, doing the old in&out is normal, unremarkable behavior, unlikely to result in physical injury when done properly.