At least, if the worker is attending an out-of-town conference on the employer’s dime, it appears:
Workers’ comp for woman’s sex injury
Apparently in the evening, after the day’s conference was over, she and a dinner date went up to her room and, well:
Her claim for “workers’ compensation for facial and psychological injuries” was opposed by her employer, but granted by the court.
So, boinking is not compensable, but getting bonked while boinking is, if the employer’s paying for the room…
nod It’d probably be compensable here, too. The idea being that they wouldn’t have been hurt if they hadn’t been in the hotel, away from home, for the business trip.
The catch is that if they also sue the hotel (which would probably be more money), then they have to pay back WC out of the settlement with the hotel. Otherwise it’s double-dipping.
Sounds fair to me. It wasn’t a sex injury, it was an injury caused by the fittings in a hotel room that they were in for work.
I think I would have left out the part about “going hard”, and maybe just said that I was sleeping when it happened.
hey, it’s a court proceeding - don’t want to add pains and penalties of perjury to the list of injuries caused by hard boinking!
No, because if it then came out in court that they were engaged in “activities other than sleeping” the claim could be thrown out due to them lying.
I’m surprised they didn’t get overtime as well.
Yeah, it’s a reasonable finding.
What will probably happen is that now that the court has defined the event as work related, employers will now have a basis for issuing instructions that guests are not allowed in hotel rooms. That’s totally unenforcable of course, but it means that any future injuries of this type won’t be covered because the worker was disobeying a direct instruction.
All this has happened before. A lot of workplaces in Australia issue instructions that workers can not leave the worksite during their lunch breaks because all travel to and from work is covered by workers comp. Such an instruction is unenforcable because workers are on their own time during their breaks, but it means that any injuries that occur offsite are not covered or covered at a lesser rate because the worker was warned that the activity was dangerous.
Unfortunately this is a problematic area legally and morally. The workers don’t get paid for time spent in hotel rooms or lunch breaks, but they also don’t want to be asked to work 24 hour shifts while they are away from home. IOW nobody actually wants to be considered working during these times. But while everyone wants the workers to be considered “on their own time”, the workers also want to be considered “on company time” when they get injured, which is also fair enough IMO since the injury only occurred because of work related activities
There’s no unambiguously just way to deal with the issue. The bets compromise seems to be the current situation: the employer issues instructions that some activities, such as guests in rooms, are forbidden because of the inherent danger. That limits what workers can do during their time off, but it is less restrictive for everyine than considering them to be “on duty” for 36 hours straight.
Well, if employers issue instructions like, “no guests in hotel rooms”, then can’t the employee argue that they are still on the clock, and seek overtime penalty rates for those times when they are sleeping in their room but doing (or not doing) things at the employer’s direction?
In CA injuries “going and coming” to/from work and activities on lunch breaks aren’t compensible - they’re on your own time, not the employer’s. But in a case like this, where it’s a business trip, it’s an exception.
Also, it doesn’t matter if the employee was warned against an activity - it’s a no-fault system. You can tell your roofers to wear a harness all day, discipline them if you catch them without one, etc - but if some yahoo decides not to wear it and falls 3 stories and breaks his neck, it’s still just as compensable.
The insurance company will probably sue the hotel room to get reimbursed. I had a guy fall off a ladder once and my workers comp covered him, but then tried to go after the company that made the ladder. I don’t know if they were successful.
It may be reasonable based on the actual law and the case law but otherwise it is pretty stupid.
Choking on your dinner or tripping in the hallway while on a business trip shouldn’t be covered either unless it can be shown that the employer made you stay in a substandard facility.
Theappeal was on a rather narrow point of law and from what I can tell, the Federal Court was correct in holding that the Tribunal below erred. The point is not whether sex was part of her duties, the point was whether it was done during the course of her duties which it clearly was, duties being the fact she was on an overnight trip in a hotel under her employers direction. If the glass fitting had fallen on her while she had been asleep or having an informal discussion on the phone or during reading papers it would have been the same and this case would never have recieved media attention.
Workers’ compensation is based on no-fault principles, so I would think that’s irrelevant.
What Northern Piper says. Plus at common law if you become liable to someone due to a third parties fault you have a perfectly valid claim against said third party.
I guess swinging from the chandelier is better as a fantasy than as reality.
Isn’t the problem more an unsafe fixture that fell? It doesn’t seem to matter what the occupants of the room were doing; if it fell while they were doing accounting, it would be just as much a hazard. Saying that having a guest is the problem is misleading.
The fact they were having sex seems completely irrelevant to the case but I guess it makes a good headline.
Some might in a kneejerk way but I don’t know that many will. This case is on a set of pretty unique circumstances. The presence of the guest did not cause the injury and was extremely unlucky. It’s a bit different to the real risk of an MVA.
That’s basically it. “Light fixture falls on sleeping woman on business trip, successful worker’s compo claim ensues” is the sort of thing that even a small-town newspaper might only run a brief on, and that’s only if it’s been a really slow news week.
As you observe, “Light fixture falls on woman having sexy fun time in hotel on business trip, successful worker’s compo claim ensues” is a lot more interesting from a news perspective. I would suggest that many, many people, even if they won’t admit it, would be wondering what sort of sexy fun time was involved to break light fittings to such an extent that it warranted a successful worker’s compo claim.