Compo shagger wins big in the Federal court

johnboy 19 April 2012 30

For some years we’ve thrilled to the tales of the public servant who pulled a local while on a work trip to the country and monstered the hotel room fittings to the point a light came down on her face leading to a Comcare claim.

Comcare said no, the AAT said no, but five years later the Federal Court has said yes according to the SMH.

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.

I’m also curious as to which government agency has a “human relations section”?

The woman, aged in her late 30s, was employed in the human relations section of a Commonwealth government agency.

I mean really, what were they expecting?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to Compo shagger wins big in the Federal court
Filter
Order
dixyland dixyland 12:01 pm 22 Apr 12

There are two types of people in this situation:

1. They are embarrassed or laugh it off because shit happens. It’s a great story to bring up.
2. They think the world owes them something so they sue sue sue and try to get compo.

Most people are the former, and I’d like to believe very few are the latter.

I do wonder if she caught and STI, could she have sued for that? Or what if she had gotten pregnant?

dundle dundle 10:37 pm 21 Apr 12

GardeningGirl said :

welkin31 said :

I am puzzled that you would not look to compo from the Hotel/motel insurance policy in this case.
Why do we sucker taxpayers get hit ?

My thoughts exactly! I could understand the government providing the person with some legal assistance if the need arose, because they sent her on the trip and presumably chose the motel, but otherwise isn’t it really between her and the motel?

Because it was a work trip, so she basically has to put in her claim for worker’s comp. I assume Comcare can (and will?) go after the motel if necessary, not her job to do so.

c_c c_c 2:04 pm 21 Apr 12

For those scratching their heads about he job description of “human relations” – it turns out in 1974, Australia had a whole Royal Commission into “human relationships.”

GardeningGirl GardeningGirl 12:34 pm 20 Apr 12

welkin31 said :

I am puzzled that you would not look to compo from the Hotel/motel insurance policy in this case.
Why do we sucker taxpayers get hit ?

My thoughts exactly! I could understand the government providing the person with some legal assistance if the need arose, because they sent her on the trip and presumably chose the motel, but otherwise isn’t it really between her and the motel?

zorro29 zorro29 11:32 am 20 Apr 12

TheGingerNinja said :

the shag heard round the world? seriously though, how you can get a pay out for your own actions, that resulted in said injuries is ridiculous, does this mean i can get compo for pouring hot coffee on myself?

pretty much…it’s not fault legislation so it doesn’t matter how dumb you are, you will get compo if it’s on work time

personally i’d be too embarrassed to say i was injured while having sex but takes all sorts i guess. who would she be having sex with on a work trip anyway??? must be a very different “agency” to mine

just more waste of tax payer $$……sigh sigh

p1 p1 9:41 am 20 Apr 12

Gerry-Built said :

ComCare just seems to dismiss nearly every case presented; hoping that most people won’t have the drive to follow it up – especially over such a long period… Good on her for following this through over such a long term; especially after it became such public knowledge.

This isn’t just ComCare, this is the insurance industry generally. My sister inlaw had perfectly straight forward car insurance (her not at fault) claim rejected flat, and then it took ages of screwing around before they gave her the money.

Gerry-Built Gerry-Built 8:48 am 20 Apr 12

I don’t see a problem with this. If you had a car accident whilst traveling for work; treatment would be covered. If you got food poisoning; treatment would be covered. If the light fitting had simply fallen on her during the night whilst sleeping – there wouldn’t have even been a problem with her compo. I don’t think that having sex whilst on a trip away should be considered out of the realms of normal activity. It is simply because sex is involved that the media has followed this – for the titillation…

I have every expectation that Government Departments will now throw together some rules about what is acceptable behaviour on the road for work (if they haven’t already); I’d fully expect high risk (bungee jumping, go-karting, abseiling, skydiving) activities to be banned (as common-sense would tell you), but sex isn’t (usually) high risk; even if vigorous.

ComCare just seems to dismiss nearly every case presented; hoping that most people won’t have the drive to follow it up – especially over such a long period… Good on her for following this through over such a long term; especially after it became such public knowledge.

welkin31 welkin31 6:39 am 20 Apr 12

I am puzzled that you would not look to compo from the Hotel/motel insurance policy in this case.
Why do we sucker taxpayers get hit ?

HenryBG HenryBG 11:53 pm 19 Apr 12

screaming banshee said :

The thing that s***s me is the suppression, if we the tax payers have to compensate someone for smacking themselves in the face with a light fitting while screwing around on a work trip the we should bloody well know who it is.

Yep, this is the big issue. She’s put her snout in the trough for *our* taxes so she should have to tell us who she is.

Between useless bludging public servants and conniving parasite lawyers, I’m surprised there’s *any* of our money left for Education, Health and Roads.

Stevian Stevian 11:35 pm 19 Apr 12

You’re all just jealous, admit it.

Velveteen Rabbit Velveteen Rabbit 10:25 pm 19 Apr 12

Ok, ok! Ignorance admitted. Sheesh.

Chaz Chaz 9:46 pm 19 Apr 12

Velveteen Rabbit said :

johnboy said :

So what agency has a human relations section?

I imagine said section was swiftly renamed or morphed into the generic-sounding ‘Human Resources’ area.

Seriously wtf. I wonder how much she got, and how much of that she will end up with after ‘contributory negligence’ and legal fees have been factored in.

I believe someone sued Maccas in the US for spilling hot coffee on themselves, claiming that Maccas should have known that the temperature of said coffee was likely to cause personal injury should some numpty spill it, and therefore were negligent by making their coffee too hot.

I think you need to see this documentary http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

or just keep living in your ignorant little world

p1 p1 9:39 pm 19 Apr 12

I actually support the idea of workers compensation covering people for bad shit that happens when they are somewhere they would not be were it not for their employment.

However, didn’t a cop somewhere in Aust recently loose a workers comp case for injuries sustained when out drinking in a town he was only in ’cause of his work? I hope his appeal is supported (I couldn’t seem to google up the case from my phone, if I am imagining the whole thing I appologies).

screaming banshee screaming banshee 9:39 pm 19 Apr 12

The thing that s***s me is the suppression, if we the tax payers have to compensate someone for smacking themselves in the face with a light fitting while screwing around on a work trip the we should bloody well know who it is.

parle parle 7:22 pm 19 Apr 12

Velveteen Rabbit said :

I believe someone sued Maccas in the US for spilling hot coffee on themselves, claiming that Maccas should have known that the temperature of said coffee was likely to cause personal injury should some numpty spill it, and therefore were negligent by making their coffee too hot.

mcdonalds knew the temperature of the coffee and they knew that it injured people before this more famous incident.

the coffee was too hot, mcdonalds were liable and the settlement often quoted was appealed down by McD’s lawyers until it barely covered the medical expenses. The elderly lady (or ‘numpty’ as you put it) required skin grafts and never recovered fully up until to her death.

the reason you’re quoting it is because, at the time, u.s. tort law reform lobby groups used the ‘absurdity’ of that case to champion their efforts to have state and federal legislators introduce limits on compensation payouts, well that or seinfeld.

there’s photos taken at hospital of the injury, why don’t you find them, it’s all you will need to change your opinion of that case and stop quoting it.

Listers_Cat Listers_Cat 7:15 pm 19 Apr 12

TheGingerNinja said :

the shag heard round the world? seriously though, how you can get a pay out for your own actions, that resulted in said injuries is ridiculous, does this mean i can get compo for pouring hot coffee on myself?

If she had been playing cards and got injured she would have been eligible for compensation. Why not for having sex? Its not like she deliberately hurt herself.

As far as I’m concerned, the only reason her claim was originally denied was prudery.

Martlark Martlark 6:59 pm 19 Apr 12

TheGingerNinja said :

… does this mean i can get compo for pouring hot coffee on myself?

If you could get it when at the office, you can get it when required to be working out of the office. As the judge said if she was sitting playing cards and got injured then there would have been no issues, the fact she was having sex does not change her entitlement to compo. It just makes the case a bit lurid.

dtc dtc 6:46 pm 19 Apr 12

Velveteen Rabbit said :

johnboy said :

So what agency has a human relations section?

I imagine said section was swiftly renamed or morphed into the generic-sounding ‘Human Resources’ area.

Seriously wtf. I wonder how much she got, and how much of that she will end up with after ‘contributory negligence’ and legal fees have been factored in.

I believe someone sued Maccas in the US for spilling hot coffee on themselves, claiming that Maccas should have known that the temperature of said coffee was likely to cause personal injury should some numpty spill it, and therefore were negligent by making their coffee too hot.

Firstly, its Comcare not negligence so completely different. Its a workers comp claim, presumably the argument was whether she was injured during work (being on a work trip) or whether her activities took her behaviour outside of what you would expect as an employer sending her on a work trip.

Secondly, if you do some research on the Mcdonalds case, you will understand why the injured person received compo. In short, serving someone coffee so hot as to cause very serious burns is probably a bad idea.

Velveteen Rabbit Velveteen Rabbit 5:43 pm 19 Apr 12

johnboy said :

So what agency has a human relations section?

I imagine said section was swiftly renamed or morphed into the generic-sounding ‘Human Resources’ area.

Seriously wtf. I wonder how much she got, and how much of that she will end up with after ‘contributory negligence’ and legal fees have been factored in.

I believe someone sued Maccas in the US for spilling hot coffee on themselves, claiming that Maccas should have known that the temperature of said coffee was likely to cause personal injury should some numpty spill it, and therefore were negligent by making their coffee too hot.

TheGingerNinja TheGingerNinja 5:26 pm 19 Apr 12

the shag heard round the world? seriously though, how you can get a pay out for your own actions, that resulted in said injuries is ridiculous, does this mean i can get compo for pouring hot coffee on myself?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site