8 August 2013

Compo shagger hits the High Court

| johnboy
Join the conversation
36

In a testament to bloody mindedness on both sides of the case the ABC reports that the infamous compo shagger’s case is now being heard by the highest court in the land:

The High Court is hearing a case where a public servant wants workers compensation after being injured while having sex during a work trip in 2007.

The incident happened when the public servant travelled to a New South Wales country town as part of her job.

She suffered injuries to her face after a light fitting came off the wall while she was having sex in her room.

We await the judgment with some interest.

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

LSWCHP said :

milkman said :

LSWCHP said :

She put her weight on a light fitting, and perhaps the blokes weight as well. If I saw one of my kids doing something like that I’d scold them and tell them to stop it because they might get hurt.

2 things:

1) How do we know it was a bloke?

2) You’d scold your kids for rooting while hanging off a lamp shade?

1. I recall seeing an article stating that it happened in Nowra, and the other party was “a local man”. Not that it matters either way.

2.I can find humour in most things, but not in flippant comments about little kids having sex, mine or anybody elses.

1. Thankyou for the source.

2. I thought your comment related to when your kids were ‘of age’, not while they were little. I thought it was funny that you’d know details of your childrens’ sex lives involving climbing on things other than people.

OLydia said :

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

+1

Using the same argument, I’ll bring my girlfriend into the office during the day and have sex with her. If I fall off my chair while doing the deed and injure myself, I should be entitled to compensation for a work related injury. The sex was incidental to me being at work yeah?

You’re still at work when on work trips. Your activities are expected to be reasonable work activities and I would guess within the code of conduct.. I don’t remember sex being included as an acceptable activity in there.

The ambulance chaser’s case should never got past the first hurdle.

troll-sniffer11:02 pm 08 Aug 13

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

Not very hard to counter this line of argument: If I went away on a work trip and decided it would be fun to climb out my window and launch myself onto the top of a moving car. If I survived, would my work be responsible for paying me damages etc? Get real people, there are pretty obvious boundaries between what is considered normal behaviours and activities that are expected when on a work trip, and those that are considered by any reasonable measure to be personal choices of risk. Hanging on to a light fitting that was not designed to be hung on to (whether during sex or not) is clearly a personal choice of activity with an inherent risk that could never have been forseen by any reasonable employer and that’s what the case should be based on, not some overtly simple line of reaoning such as we have above.

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

+1

milkman said :

LSWCHP said :

She put her weight on a light fitting, and perhaps the blokes weight as well. If I saw one of my kids doing something like that I’d scold them and tell them to stop it because they might get hurt.

2 things:

1) How do we know it was a bloke?

2) You’d scold your kids for rooting while hanging off a lamp shade?

1. I recall seeing an article stating that it happened in Nowra, and the other party was “a local man”. Not that it matters either way.

2.I can find humour in most things, but not in flippant comments about little kids having sex, mine or anybody elses.

screaming banshee9:19 pm 08 Aug 13

milkman said :

LSWCHP said :

She put her weight on a light fitting, and perhaps the blokes weight as well. If I saw one of my kids doing something like that I’d scold them and tell them to stop it because they might get hurt.

2) You’d scold your kids for rooting while hanging off a lamp shade?

Wouldn’t you?

LSWCHP said :

She put her weight on a light fitting, and perhaps the blokes weight as well. If I saw one of my kids doing something like that I’d scold them and tell them to stop it because they might get hurt.

2 things:

1) How do we know it was a bloke?

2) You’d scold your kids for rooting while hanging off a lamp shade?

screaming banshee7:47 pm 08 Aug 13

Stevian said :

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

Exactly, having sex is just a red herring that the media has latched onto to sell papers/adspace. The simple question is “Did the light fitting come loose when subjected to reasonable use or was it subject to excessive force?” What she was doing at the time is irrelevant.

Please do enlighten us all as to reasonable use of a light fitting. Does the manufacturers operating manual advise that the fitting may be used for thrusts up to 30lb per thrust and at a rate of no greater than 6 thrusts per minute?

As others have noted, the fact that she was having intercourse at the time of the event (it wasn’t an accident) is irrelevant. If she’d been having a shower and fell over and hurt herself then there would be no question that she was entitled to workers comp IMHO. If she’d been having intercourse and the bed collapsed and she hurt her back then she’d be entitled to compensation.

However, I think she contributed in a major way to her injuries, and I don’t like to see stupidity rewarded. She put her weight on a light fitting, and perhaps the blokes weight as well. If I saw one of my kids doing something like that I’d scold them and tell them to stop it because they might get hurt.

I reckon she deserves compensation because ultimately it wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t been there because of her work. But the amount needs to substantially reduced due to her contributory negligence.

I am not a lawyer though, so only Zoroaster knows how this will pan out.

Blen_Carmichael said :

neanderthalsis said :

I hope the transcripts become publicly available so we can all have a laugh. I am rather curious as to how she was hit in the face with a light fitting whilst having a naughty.

I’m not sure that it will: the plaintiff’s name, together with certain details of the claim, was suppressed at the AAT, supposedly because there was “evidence that the applicant may act on suicidal tendencies if the reasons were made public”. It may well be that there were good reasons for suppressing her name and other information. On the other hand she may be a neurotic, self-centered princess. As with much of these matters, the newspaper’s brief summary is a poor alternative to hearing all the details in court.

Cool, so the take-home lesson there is that a successful application for a suppression order can be obtained through simply blackmailing the court with threats of suicide.

If she isn’t too embarrassed to have the taxpayer fund the results of her personal decision to shag, then she should be identified.

I am sure that anybody else, injured at work would not be too embarrassed for their claim to be made public unless they were engaged in an embarrassing scam.

What a competent legal system we enjoy….

Blen_Carmichael6:01 pm 08 Aug 13

neanderthalsis said :

I hope the transcripts become publicly available so we can all have a laugh. I am rather curious as to how she was hit in the face with a light fitting whilst having a naughty.

I’m not sure that it will: the plaintiff’s name, together with certain details of the claim, was suppressed at the AAT, supposedly because there was “evidence that the applicant may act on suicidal tendencies if the reasons were made public”. It may well be that there were good reasons for suppressing her name and other information. On the other hand she may be a neurotic, self-centered princess. As with much of these matters, the newspaper’s brief summary is a poor alternative to hearing all the details in court.

Commonsense test surely would set the bar at “no compo if she was using the light fitting for a purpose it wasn’t intended for” and also “she behaved irresponsibly and endangered herself”. Light fittings are NEVER installed for the purpose of grabbing onto and with the expectation that they will take the weight of one human being, let alone two! If she had grabbed onto the bedhead, different story. If the bedhead wouldn’t take it, though, that would be the fault of the motel.

Photos or it didn’t happen.

steveu said :

a bunch of ambulance chasers winding up a client to make money, as the generally do.

Hear, hear. Whatever the outcome, the ambulance chasers will win.

Two applicable APS Code of Conduct seem to stand out here:

•”act with care and diligence in connection with APS employment”; and
•”at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and Employment Principles, and the integrity and good reputation of the employee’s Agency and the APS”.

My question is that if “at all times” was considered by the various courts, does this mean that any Cth public servant can lodge a successful sex-injury related claim, even when it happened at home?

So did she tell her partner to stop because she was suddenly feeling light headed?

beardedclam said :

Pay compo if she is a registered sex worker

Irrelevant in this case

thebrownstreak693:26 pm 08 Aug 13

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

Was she undertaking an activity reasonably required for the trip? It’s reasonable that people need to walk, sleep, eat, shower, poo, drive a car, etc. Ripping a light fitting out of a wall and smashing yourself in the face, not so much…

Pay compo if she is a registered sex worker

Remove the intercourse aspect and the facts are pretty clear. An injury occurred while on a work trip. The commonwealth should make her whole, or at least provide compensation.

If this fails, OPC will have to draft a “sex carve-out”. Sounds painful!

JesterNoir said :

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

Exactly, having sex is just a red herring that the media has latched onto to sell papers/adspace. The simple question is “Did the light fitting come loose when subjected to reasonable use or was it subject to excessive force?” What she was doing at the time is irrelevant.

Felix the Cat said :

How is it different to doing any other activity and being hurt while at a work function? What if they went swimming and slipped off the diving board and cracked their head open, would that be covered? What about walking down the street and a light fitting fell off a pole and hit them in the head, would that be covered?

I would think probably fair enough to knock back a claim if the person was skydiving or bungee jumping or doing something extraordinary, but having cosensual sex is pretty mainstream. Unless maybe they were doing some kinky B & D thing, then it may be a grey area.

“kinky B & D thing” would be a very subjective test indeed. For some people, anything but the missionary position is kinky. Let your mind go wild for other examples. Possibly, you could exclude ‘any illegal activity’ from being covered.

I find the whole case very interesting, for all the reasons already outlined.

Mark

neanderthalsis said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

I’d like to take this lady out on a date, given that we know she puts out…

She has a face like a smashed lampshade though…

10/10

Felix the Cat1:51 pm 08 Aug 13

How is it different to doing any other activity and being hurt while at a work function? What if they went swimming and slipped off the diving board and cracked their head open, would that be covered? What about walking down the street and a light fitting fell off a pole and hit them in the head, would that be covered?

I would think probably fair enough to knock back a claim if the person was skydiving or bungee jumping or doing something extraordinary, but having cosensual sex is pretty mainstream. Unless maybe they were doing some kinky B & D thing, then it may be a grey area.

I still don’t understand what her having sex has to do with it.
She was away on a work trip, and was injured during said work trip, whilst in the (probably work sanctioned) accommodation.
What does the specific activity have to do with it?

neanderthalsis1:10 pm 08 Aug 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

I’d like to take this lady out on a date, given that we know she puts out…

She has a face like a smashed lampshade though…

thebrownstreak6912:47 pm 08 Aug 13

I’d like to take this lady out on a date, given that we know she puts out…

While I am generally against people pursuing compo for things that they should just take responsibility for… in this case I actually think that maybe your works insurance should cover you for anything that might happen when away on a work trip.

Does anyone know if the one night stand was called as a witness at any stage?

devils_advocate12:32 pm 08 Aug 13

KB1971 said :

Where does the duty of care stop considering they are away for work, not pleasure?

As far as I know the system imposes liability independent of having to prove fault. i.e. if you get injured in the course of work, liability arises, no need to prove breach of duty or negligence or something.

devils_advocate12:30 pm 08 Aug 13

neanderthalsis said :

Furthermore, I hope the claimant is posted to the deepest pit of PS hell, probably somewhere in DEEWR, and left to rot for making such a pathetic claim.

Huh? Someone makes a compo claim and you think the right thing for the employer to do is to seek some kind of revenge on the claimant?

a bunch of ambulance chasers winding up a client to make money, as the generally do.

Regardless of the extend of her injuries ‘on the job’ in her hotelroom I cant see how her employer required her to have sex?

Outcome of this if successful? Will PS have to sign a waiver that they wont shag whilst on an interstate trip? WIll safer sex positions be a requirement (through training and assessment) before going interstate? Or will a manual with diagrams be handed out instead to cover the Commonwealth?

The mind boggles.

HiddenDragon12:05 pm 08 Aug 13

What next – the UN Security Council? Anyway, a momentarily entertaining diversion from what is, so far, a fairly dreary election campaign.

neanderthalsis said :

I hope the transcripts become publicly available so we can all have a laugh. I am rather curious as to how she was hit in the face with a light fitting whilst having a naughty.

But on a serious note, despite being a waste of tax payers dollars, I fully support Comcare doing all it can to avoid making a payout. Furthermore, I hope the claimant is posted to the deepest pit of PS hell, probably somewhere in DEEWR, and left to rot for making such a pathetic claim.

I know this has peobably been hashed out before but here goes anyway.

So, at what point does the Commonwealth Government stop looking after their employees while they are away on business?

Where does the duty of care stop considering they are away for work, not pleasure?

neanderthalsis said :

I hope the transcripts become publicly available so we can all have a laugh. I am rather curious as to how she was hit in the face with a light fitting whilst having a naughty.

But on a serious note, despite being a waste of tax payers dollars, I fully support Comcare doing all it can to avoid making a payout. Furthermore, I hope the claimant is posted to the deepest pit of PS hell, probably somewhere in DEEWR, and left to rot for making such a pathetic claim.

What I’d like to know is the extent of her injuries. Permanent disfigurement? I mean it must be if she’s taking it all the way to the High Court.

neanderthalsis10:28 am 08 Aug 13

I hope the transcripts become publicly available so we can all have a laugh. I am rather curious as to how she was hit in the face with a light fitting whilst having a naughty.

But on a serious note, despite being a waste of tax payers dollars, I fully support Comcare doing all it can to avoid making a payout. Furthermore, I hope the claimant is posted to the deepest pit of PS hell, probably somewhere in DEEWR, and left to rot for making such a pathetic claim.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.