Friday, April 20, 2012

Motel Sex Injury

Last year we asked the question: Does a sex accident that occurs in a motel while on a business trip count as a work accident?" 

Finally, we can now categorically answer this burning question, that many corporate travellers frequenting motel rooms have often asked themselves. 

The answer is....YES!
An Australian public servant injured on a work trip while having sex with an acquaintance at a motel is entitled to compensation, a court has found.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was denied a Workers' Compensation claim for facial and psychological injuries suffered when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex in November 2007.

She took ComCare, Australia's federal government workplace safety body, to the Federal Court over its decision to reject her claim.
Today, Justice John Nicholas, ruled in her favour, saying the injuries were suffered in the course of her employment.

The woman's employer had sent her to spend the night at a NSW rural motel before a departmental meeting the next day.

During the hearing, the woman's barrister, Leo Grey, said sex was "an ordinary incident of life" commonly undertaken in a motel room at night, just like sleeping or showering.

Grey referred to previous cases, including when compensation was granted to a worker who slipped in the shower at a hotel.
Grey said there was no suggestion the woman had engaged in any misconduct and noted the absence of any rule that employees should not have anyone else in their room.

But Andrew Berger, for ComCare, said sex was not "an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating".

While sexual activity was an ordinary incident, it was not necessary, he added.

In his statement, her sexual partner said they were "going hard".

"I do not know if we bumped the light or it just fell off," he said.

"I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we are rolling around."

In May last year the woman was granted a suppression order on her name after she told the court she would withdraw her suit if she was publicly identified.

Justice Nicholas ruled "the administration of justice would be prejudiced unless an order is made protecting the identity of the applicant".

He took into account evidence the woman was suffering depression and anxiety.

"I am satisfied that this is not a case where the application for [non-publication] orders is motivated by simple desire to avoid embarrassment or ridicule," he said. 
Source: Click HERE

Click the "Get Widget" link below to place this widget on your website or blog!