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 involves 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.
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.
“This is no different than slipping over in the shower or being bashed by a gang of thugs after a dispute over a woman,” Mr Grey said. But Andrew Berger, counsel for Comcare, submitted that having sex was not a “necessary activity” for a motel room, in the same way that “showering, bathing or sleeping” is.
The government’s workplace safety body ComCare rejected her compensation claim 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 socializing may be regarded as a recreational activity, yet injuries resulting from those activities … have been found to be compensable,” her lawyers argue.
Is ComCare serious? Why else would people check into a motel if not for sex? If you want a good night's sleep you check into a hotel.
source
No comments:
Post a Comment