30 October 2013

High Court says no to the compo shagger

| johnboy
Join the conversation
55

News is just coming in that the Canberra public servant who tried to claim workers comp for injuries incurred while wrecking a hotel room with rough trade picked up in Nowra (and rough trade comes little rougher) has been ruled against by the High Court of Australia.

Her heroic efforts will, however, have implications for everyone else injured out of hours while on work trips.

The High Court’s thoughts on the matter are available:

The High Court allowed Comcare’s appeal. A majority of the High Court held that in order for an injury sustained in an interval or interlude during an overall period of work to be in the course of an employee’s employment, the circumstances in which the employee was injured must be connected to an inducement or encouragement by the employer. If the employee is injured whilst engaged in an activity at a certain place, that connection does not exist merely because of an inducement or encouragement to be at that place. When the circumstances of an injury involve the employee engaging in an activity at the time of the injury, the relevant question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity? On the facts of the respondent’s case, the majority held that the answer to that question was ‘no’.

Join the conversation

55
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Ah then you don’t know the first thing about torts / litigation (or whatever it is)… you sue the biggest fish… i.e. the Commonwealth.

Additionally, if you use the ‘But for’ test that they teach lawyers… but for not humping like a rabbit, said claimant would not have injured herself.

I rest my case…

Robertson said :

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

Yes, exactly. Burnt by a faulty hot water system. Slipped on a broken tile or poorly draining floor. Falling while stepping out of a shower over bath, or falling in the bath (someone I know did that at home and it was four hours before he could move far enough to call a doctor; he was off work for weeks, and ran out of sick leave). All of these risks are things you can control in your own home, and have no control over in a motel or hotel.

…in which case the Hotel or Motel is responsible and can be sued. Not your employer.

Felix the Cat said :

“snip”

I have no problems with genuine accidents as such.

However, we need to be careful not to take away all notions of personal responsibility.

For instance, I am on a work trip, have a few beers and decide to hit a night club until 3am. On the way home I stagger drunkenly onto a road and get run over.

Hypothetical I know, but should I be compensated for this? After all, it is a work trip, I am in an unfamiliar environment, my work mates insisted I come out with them.

I idon’t think you should be covered for compo while intoxicated (or under influence of drugs). This is different issue to having sex.

This ^^

Our work has scrict alcahol and drug policies and then there is the Public Service Act……….

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

Yes, exactly. Burnt by a faulty hot water system. Slipped on a broken tile or poorly draining floor. Falling while stepping out of a shower over bath, or falling in the bath (someone I know did that at home and it was four hours before he could move far enough to call a doctor; he was off work for weeks, and ran out of sick leave). All of these risks are things you can control in your own home, and have no control over in a motel or hotel.

…in which case the Hotel or Motel is responsible and can be sued. Not your employer.

Felix the Cat10:24 am 06 Nov 13

KB1971 said :

No doubt time to wrap everyone in cotton wool.

Seriously, it’s a dangerous world out there. What with unfamiliar showers, water, soap, light fittings….

I really hope people like you have to go through something like this one day.

A mate of mine who is an interstate truck driver fell off the back of his truck in a Depot in Brisbane. He was performing a task he has done 1000 times at a depot he was familiar with. He smashed his leg as spent 3 months in hospital up there.

All this while his wife was at home with the kids and unable to go and see him……three months.

‘So what;’ you might say, ‘he was working when it happened’.

Maybe so but what if he had knocked off for the day, had been sleeping in the truck and fell out while going for a pee? He is tired and groggy. The truck is still familiar to him but he had an accident anyway and it is on his time.

His employer should still bear the responsibility because they compelled him to be there. No different to travel for the Government.

Get a grip, people hurt themselves in all sorts of situations which in hindsight look stupid but at the time, until the incident happens, are not so stupid.

I have no problems with genuine accidents as such.

However, we need to be careful not to take away all notions of personal responsibility.

For instance, I am on a work trip, have a few beers and decide to hit a night club until 3am. On the way home I stagger drunkenly onto a road and get run over.

Hypothetical I know, but should I be compensated for this? After all, it is a work trip, I am in an unfamiliar environment, my work mates insisted I come out with them.

I idon’t think you should be covered for compo while intoxicated (or under influence of drugs). This is different issue to having sex.

No doubt time to wrap everyone in cotton wool.

Seriously, it’s a dangerous world out there. What with unfamiliar showers, water, soap, light fittings….

I really hope people like you have to go through something like this one day.

A mate of mine who is an interstate truck driver fell off the back of his truck in a Depot in Brisbane. He was performing a task he has done 1000 times at a depot he was familiar with. He smashed his leg as spent 3 months in hospital up there.

All this while his wife was at home with the kids and unable to go and see him……three months.

‘So what;’ you might say, ‘he was working when it happened’.

Maybe so but what if he had knocked off for the day, had been sleeping in the truck and fell out while going for a pee? He is tired and groggy. The truck is still familiar to him but he had an accident anyway and it is on his time.

His employer should still bear the responsibility because they compelled him to be there. No different to travel for the Government.

Get a grip, people hurt themselves in all sorts of situations which in hindsight look stupid but at the time, until the incident happens, are not so stupid.

nemesisrocks said :

This woman should be named and shamed, preferably on Today Tonight or the likes. If it was a man making the claim, I doubt the courts would have allowed his name to be suppressed.

How is her identity relevant? I agree with the final judgement, but absolutely she should be protected from being ridiculed by prurient and juvenile people.

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

Yes, exactly. Burnt by a faulty hot water system. Slipped on a broken tile or poorly draining floor. Falling while stepping out of a shower over bath, or falling in the bath (someone I know did that at home and it was four hours before he could move far enough to call a doctor; he was off work for weeks, and ran out of sick leave). All of these risks are things you can control in your own home, and have no control over in a motel or hotel.

IP

I heard most of a discussion of this on the Law Report this afternoon http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/what-is-and-what-isn27t-a-work-related-injury3f/5068942#transcript

I was unaware that CommCare had argued that injuring yourself in the hotel gym would also not be covered.

This is the thin end of a very nasty wedge. Perhaps people covered by CommCare (federal and ACT public servants, perhaps others too) should refuse to go away for work. The argument that you could have injured yourself in the gym or shower at home, or crossing the road to get to work, is spurious. At home you know the environment and you take your own risks. When work sends you to a small country town to stay in dodgy motels, but basically puts you at different risks from what you are used to, then work has caused you to be in the situation that resulted in the injury.

The law professor’s point about having sex with your partner is apt. If work gave you permission to take your partner with you and stay in the same room, are you then covered or not covered? Surely partners would be expected to have sex (perhaps not every night) when away from home and the kids? And if a light fitting falls on you, then you should be covered.

The issue seems to be vagueness about what cover you have when on a work trip involving staying away from home overnight. CommCare is going to argue for the absolute minimum, and that’s not a position any reasonable person should support.

Why have the unions been silent on this case?

IP

Felix the Cat2:25 pm 02 Nov 13

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

And costs were awarded. That’s got to hurt a hell of a lot more than hitting a loose light fitting.

I would tell you what actually happened about costs (its in the case) but I wont just so that those who have clearly not understood the issue but nonetheless are ranting and raving about the decision might head off to actually read the case, or the summary, and find out about the unusual costs situation…and learn why they are making irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the case itself.

And also find something else to get themselves into a lather about.

Enlighten us. I didn’t read anything in the link in the OP that hasn’t already been said in OP or various other regurgitated media articles.Nothing in there I can see relating to why costs were awarded.

Blen_Carmichael2:24 pm 02 Nov 13

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

And costs were awarded. That’s got to hurt a hell of a lot more than hitting a loose light fitting.

I would tell you what actually happened about costs (its in the case) but I wont just so that those who have clearly not understood the issue but nonetheless are ranting and raving about the decision might head off to actually read the case, or the summary, and find out about the unusual costs situation…and learn why they are making irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the case itself.

And also find something else to get themselves into a lather about.

My mistake about the costs and thanks for the clarification.

nemesisrocks9:59 am 02 Nov 13

This woman should be named and shamed, preferably on Today Tonight or the likes. If it was a man making the claim, I doubt the courts would have allowed his name to be suppressed.

Blen_Carmichael said :

And costs were awarded. That’s got to hurt a hell of a lot more than hitting a loose light fitting.

I would tell you what actually happened about costs (its in the case) but I wont just so that those who have clearly not understood the issue but nonetheless are ranting and raving about the decision might head off to actually read the case, or the summary, and find out about the unusual costs situation…and learn why they are making irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the case itself.

And also find something else to get themselves into a lather about.

astrojax said :

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

well, just sayin’ – go read the dissenting reports (and not my appalling typos [gulp]) i am guessing you’ve not had to travel far fro work, then?

& when he does I hope the first hooker gives him syphillis, try claiming that on compo…….. 😛

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

well, just sayin’ – go read the dissenting reports (and not my appalling typos [gulp]) i am guessing you’ve not had to travel far fro work, then?

astrojax said :

being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs.

OMG! I have to SHOWER in UNFAMILIAR environs!!!
HEeeeeLLLLppPPP!!!!!!!!

Blen_Carmichael1:20 pm 31 Oct 13

And costs were awarded. That’s got to hurt a hell of a lot more than hitting a loose light fitting.

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

being away from your comfort zone, with which you are familiar, is being ‘induced’ by your employer. no activity can be defined as ‘usual’ in the sense that it is what you ‘normally’ do. all ‘carrying on of usual activities’ as such, while travelling for work, are therefore ‘at the inducement of the employer’; and so covered by workers compensation. or should be.

pick me as the next high court judge, pick me.

What has a “comfort zone” go to do with any of this?

How is driving to work any different from driving for any other purpose? It is not a work-related activity and it is not an activity uniquely related to any work function.

Ditto with having a shower in a hotel on a work trip. Having a shower is not work-related, it’s a normal, usual everyday activity you engage in whether it’s a work day or not, and whether you are at home, staying at mum’s, on holidays, or staying in a hotel during a work trip.

driving to work from your usual residency is common place, usual activity. being in a non-usualy environment, travelling for work, even having a shower is not ‘usua’, rather, you’d be showering in non-familiar environs. i think this is the point of some twenty years of precendence in these matters that the dissenting judges noted.

and if i were a high court judge, poetix, i would either mandate that all capitals be outlawed, or get a junior to go through my writings and pop them in for me. surely i would have that privilege? 🙂

Felix the Cat12:12 pm 31 Oct 13

laraeddy said :

And a couple of people have raised the issue of whether travel to and from work is covered by Comcare. Their site says not – see http://www.comcare.gov.au/claims_and_benefits/can_i_claim – scroll down for the list of what may be excluded.

Think you’ll find that the CPSU did negotiate some income insurance for members injured on the journey to and from work, paid for as part of union dues.

Yes I think it changed some time back. I know I recieved compo some years back when I had a crash on way home from work (not a payout, just covered sick leave and medical expenses).

Some of you seem to think that because the claimant was having sex that this is unreasonable or unnatural. Most normal adults have sex on regular occasions, same as many people go jogging or shopping or walking in the park or a million other normal things. It’s not like this woman was involved in any illegal activity, she was simply having sex in the privacy of a hotel room with the partner of her choice.

It seems if she was sitting there watchibng tv and the light fitting fell down she would be covered but because she was having sex it wasn’t. Did her work specifically say it was ok to watch tv after the conference had finished but not to have sex? I doubt it.

This ruling sets a precedent so that pretty much any other non-core non-work related injury will be in future knocked on the head too (so to speak…).

Robertson said :

astrojax said :

….

How is driving to work any different from driving for any other purpose? It is not a work-related activity and it is not an activity uniquely related to any work function.

Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense to me. Of course it is a ‘work-related’ activity – you are driving (or using some other mode of transport) to get to work. The employer wants/needs you to be at point A (his/her place) not point B (your place) – you are going there because of that, and no other reason. So until Scotty can beam us up, you are going to have to make that trip some old fashioned way, like driving – for work.

Probably even more so for lots of office-based work these days, because you could probably do most of it at home with a PC and internet connection. So if the employer wants you in the office when you maybe don’t NEED to be, it makes sense that the travel is directly down to the discretion of the employer.

And a couple of people have raised the issue of whether travel to and from work is covered by Comcare. Their site says not – see http://www.comcare.gov.au/claims_and_benefits/can_i_claim – scroll down for the list of what may be excluded.

Think you’ll find that the CPSU did negotiate some income insurance for members injured on the journey to and from work, paid for as part of union dues.

i think people are forgetting something here.
she could have lodged a common law claim not a workers comp claim.
she would of maybe got a payout with common law but with comcare she would of had a claim for life. with the benefits of:
45 weeks at full pay while certified unfit for work. (funny how she went back to work after the incident but believe me if she won in the high court she would be off today at full pay for 45 weeks as unfit)

she would not drop lower than 75% of her wage after 45 weeks (not hard to live off when not working paying petrol/car park or public transport, coffees lunch, clothes etc)

medical expenses paid for life of claim as long as med certs provided

invalidity retirement, re training, job placements and so on. Wonder why she chose to lodge comp claim with comcare.

astrojax, reading the opinions of a high court judge who doesn’t use capitals would be interesting. especially in criminal matters where it would be r v smith, or whoever. although there is probably still capital punishment for not capitalising her majesty.

I find that exhausting; Iike trying a new swimming stroke.

astrojax said :

being away from your comfort zone, with which you are familiar, is being ‘induced’ by your employer. no activity can be defined as ‘usual’ in the sense that it is what you ‘normally’ do. all ‘carrying on of usual activities’ as such, while travelling for work, are therefore ‘at the inducement of the employer’; and so covered by workers compensation. or should be.

pick me as the next high court judge, pick me.

What has a “comfort zone” go to do with any of this?

How is driving to work any different from driving for any other purpose? It is not a work-related activity and it is not an activity uniquely related to any work function.

Ditto with having a shower in a hotel on a work trip. Having a shower is not work-related, it’s a normal, usual everyday activity you engage in whether it’s a work day or not, and whether you are at home, staying at mum’s, on holidays, or staying in a hotel during a work trip.

watto23 said :

dtc said :

shauno said :

Common sense at last. How can any one develop a mindset where they think its ok or have such a sense of entitlement that the government or any one else should give them money for mistakes they are responsible for. Its a sick society when this can happen and what a monumental waste of the courts time. People just need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I guess those 5 judges that agreed with the plaintiff must also be part of the sick society? Who agree with the sense of entitlement

She suffered serious mouth and nose injuries. Now that probably cost her, knowing dentists, $10k or more. Should she have ‘sucked it up’ (no pun intended) – perhaps. But if 5 judges think she was correct and only 4 think she was incorrect, its not like she is scamming anyone.

And as to the ‘if anyone tried it on in a private firm’, well those companies that are under the Comcare legislation face the same rules.

Lets not forget, this is workers comp NOT negligence. Fault is not an issue; only the link to work is an issue.

Still workers compo under comcare is well above what needs to be provided. Just because you are a way for work, doesn’t IMO mean workers compo should cover you. Especially if it is an activity that workers compo would not pay for if you did it at home after hours. I’m fine with an accident being covered, but if say you got injured having sex, or at dinner or going for a run after work, while on a work trip, I just don’t see why someone should be paid workers compo. By all means provide some assistance to the employee, but many of these worker compo payouts are ridiculous.

being away from your comfort zone, with which you are familiar, is being ‘induced’ by your employer. no activity can be defined as ‘usual’ in the sense that it is what you ‘normally’ do. all ‘carrying on of usual activities’ as such, while travelling for work, are therefore ‘at the inducement of the employer’; and so covered by workers compensation. or should be.

pick me as the next high court judge, pick me.

thebrownstreak699:59 am 31 Oct 13

PantsMan said :

Maybe sue the motel?

Or alternative she could take responsibility for her own stupidity.

If she wasn’t having sex, but instead just stood there and looked at the light fitting and thought “hey, I wonder if I could rip that out by grabbing it and pulling hard” and smashed herself in the head then I don’t think anyone would be talking about suing the motel.

dtc said :

shauno said :

Common sense at last. How can any one develop a mindset where they think its ok or have such a sense of entitlement that the government or any one else should give them money for mistakes they are responsible for. Its a sick society when this can happen and what a monumental waste of the courts time. People just need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I guess those 5 judges that agreed with the plaintiff must also be part of the sick society? Who agree with the sense of entitlement

She suffered serious mouth and nose injuries. Now that probably cost her, knowing dentists, $10k or more. Should she have ‘sucked it up’ (no pun intended) – perhaps. But if 5 judges think she was correct and only 4 think she was incorrect, its not like she is scamming anyone.

And as to the ‘if anyone tried it on in a private firm’, well those companies that are under the Comcare legislation face the same rules.

Lets not forget, this is workers comp NOT negligence. Fault is not an issue; only the link to work is an issue.

Still workers compo under comcare is well above what needs to be provided. Just because you are a way for work, doesn’t IMO mean workers compo should cover you. Especially if it is an activity that workers compo would not pay for if you did it at home after hours. I’m fine with an accident being covered, but if say you got injured having sex, or at dinner or going for a run after work, while on a work trip, I just don’t see why someone should be paid workers compo. By all means provide some assistance to the employee, but many of these worker compo payouts are ridiculous.

shauno said :

Common sense at last. How can any one develop a mindset where they think its ok or have such a sense of entitlement that the government or any one else should give them money for mistakes they are responsible for. Its a sick society when this can happen and what a monumental waste of the courts time. People just need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I guess those 5 judges that agreed with the plaintiff must also be part of the sick society? Who agree with the sense of entitlement

She suffered serious mouth and nose injuries. Now that probably cost her, knowing dentists, $10k or more. Should she have ‘sucked it up’ (no pun intended) – perhaps. But if 5 judges think she was correct and only 4 think she was incorrect, its not like she is scamming anyone.

And as to the ‘if anyone tried it on in a private firm’, well those companies that are under the Comcare legislation face the same rules.

Lets not forget, this is workers comp NOT negligence. Fault is not an issue; only the link to work is an issue.

Maybe sue the motel?

KB1971 said :

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

We are not covered outside of work on a normal work day so no. This has been the case since the howard era when he took away workers comp for travelling to & from work.

On this matter, let me ask the nay-sayers this: If I am away (directed to be by work) should I not be covered by workers comp?

So, if the same situation happened but the public servant was also getting a coffee for the boss then presumably that public servant would get compo because there is ‘an inducement or encouragement’?

Common sense at last. How can any one develop a mindset where they think its ok or have such a sense of entitlement that the government or any one else should give them money for mistakes they are responsible for. Its a sick society when this can happen and what a monumental waste of the courts time. People just need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Felix the Cat said :

Robertson said :

OK, so the first problem with this case has been solved: No, you can’t behave like a f&^%$wit and expect the taxpayer to fund you.

Part 2 is as yet unresolved: an individual has spent years causing escalating expense to the taxpayer with a completely immoral attempt to carve out some public funds, and yet this person is *still* being cloaked in anonymity. Why? Who else gets anonymity in this way? We’ve been taken for a ride, and now we are entitled to know the name of the %#$^wit who took us on it.

Why is a person engaged in cosensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room a “f&^%$wit”? Comcare disputed that compensation was deserved and High Court found in Comcare’s favour. That doesn’t make the person making the claim a f&^%$wit.

What difference is it going to make to your or anyone else’s life if the the person is named? Let them have their anonymity. Most posters on here use anonymous screen names when posting here. I have no need or desire to know yours or anybody else on here’s real name.

She’s a $%@wit because she adds to the perception that public servants are bums (admittedly there is sometimes some truth to that perception as in this case). If you tried this on with a private firm they’d laugh at you and rightly so.

Robertson – interesting perspective – however if a person is in a place that they would not normally be – ie a hotel. Doing something they would normally do – sleeping, having a shower and they are injured – would they be entitled to workers comp because they would not have been in that position if the employer hadn’t required it?

If you are doing something that could be “normally expected” in a hotel room – not swinging from the light fittings – and you are injured but you would not have been there if your employer hadn’t required it. Yes the hotel should be the first place to sue, however the workplace does have some responsibility.

dtc said :

Actually, it was Comcare that escalated this case – the injured person won both previous cases and she really had no choice but to continue the case (or give up – and why give up when a number of judges have already found your way).

Not sure this is right, the ABC News story states that she lost the initial tribunal hearing, then appealed to the Federal Court and won. The appeal to the High Court was the only one initiated by Comcare.

Felix the Cat said :

Why is a person engaged in cosensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room a “f&^%$wit”?

Because she tried to make us all pay for the consequences for her personal choice of non-work-related activities.

Felix the Cat said :

What difference is it going to make to your or anyone else’s life if the the person is named? Let them have their anonymity.

Why should they? She made a failed attempt to scam taxpayers’ money. She failed. She cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands in legal costs in the meantime.
What’s her name?
Why does she get to hide?

dtc said :

2. its not a question of ‘right’ or ‘morals’.

Of course it is. What kind of a scammer injures themselves having sex and tries to claim compo fo rit?

Your other points merely illustrate that compo laws remain wide open to scamming – how on earth is workers’ comp in any way related to somebody being injured by a hotel’s negligence? Or by working out in a gym? Or by slipping in the shower? It’s not work.

We need laws that place much greater emphasis on people taking personal responsibility for their lives, not laws that attempt to make the individual a helpless pawn of greater forces they have no control over and forcing the taxpayer to provide an ever-growing bottomless bucket of money for these kinds of scammers and losers to dig into.

Robertson said :

Part 2 is as yet unresolved: an individual has spent years causing escalating expense to the taxpayer with a completely immoral attempt to carve out some public funds, and yet this person is *still* being cloaked in anonymity. Why? Who else gets anonymity in this way? We’ve been taken for a ride, and now we are entitled to know the name of the %#$^wit who took us on it.

Actually, it was Comcare that escalated this case – the injured person won both previous cases and she really had no choice but to continue the case (or give up – and why give up when a number of judges have already found your way).

And keep in mind two other things:

1. two high court judges (out of 6) found for the injured person. So this is not as clear cut as you think. Indeed, overall 5 judges found for the injured person and 4 judges decided against her. Its just that those 4 are ‘more equal’ than the others…

2. its not a question of ‘right’ or ‘morals’. Its a question of how legislation should be interpreted. Dont like the legislation, get it changed.

In short, the HC said this:

1. did the person suffer an injury – in this case, yes
2. if the injury was not during the normal workday, did the employer induce or encourage the employee to be at the location where s/he was injured – in this case, yes
3. did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in the activity the person was doing at the time of the injury – in this case, NO

BUT: Comcare admitted that (3) would have been satisfied had, for example, a wall fallen on her while sleeping, she slipped over in a shower in the hotel while washing herself (because employers encourage people to be clean) etc etc.

In other words, sex is not an activity induced or encouraged by your employer. But I wonder what is – for example, working out in a hotel gym? Walking to a nearby restaurant? would you be up in arms if someone dropped a dumbell on their face – its only the sex part that makes this of purient interest to anyone other than lawyers.

c_c™ said :

In general, people on this thread seem to be confusing workers comp with negligence criteria.

Jungle Jim said :

I don’t think you can claim workers comp if you’re in a car accident on the way to or from work either. Sounds like the same principle to me.

It’s well accepted that an accident going to or from work is covered by workers comp, as are accidents in a break during the course of work hours, for example lunch time sport. The only difficulty is defining when the travel to or from work begins and ends, for example, is going through a drive-thru an intervening activity only after which the travel to work should be considered to begin?

Even under the formulation the HC has developed in this case, such things would still be covered. The employer induces you to attend work, many work places encourage workers to bond with colleagues and do things to maintaing their health such as physical activity.

The HC had previously in the context of state compensation regimes, set a rather broad test that was arguably beyond what the legislation had intended. Lower courts had complained even that they were bound by such broad standards. So in a way this is the HC being a bit more practical about things.

But yet i bet a quick poll would say neither lunchtime sport nor driving to work should be covered under workers compo. If however an employer sacked someone because they got injured driving to work or injured during lunchtime sport then the employer should be dealt with appropriately.

Same with this chick on a work trip. There are instance i could think where workers compo should pay, like a natural disaster causing injury out of work hours but while on a work trip.

c_c™ said :

The employer induces you to attend work, many work places encourage workers to bond with colleagues and do things to maintaing their health such as physical activity./quote]
So if she was shagging a co-worker then she would have been ok?

But seriously, I can attest that the travelling to and from work provision still applies, as I know someone who’s currently on compo for a car accident on their way to work.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Makes sense to me, coffee is definitely not a requirement

You must have never worked in an office. In such an environment coffee is as essential as oxygen.

In general, people on this thread seem to be confusing workers comp with negligence criteria.

Jungle Jim said :

I don’t think you can claim workers comp if you’re in a car accident on the way to or from work either. Sounds like the same principle to me.

It’s well accepted that an accident going to or from work is covered by workers comp, as are accidents in a break during the course of work hours, for example lunch time sport. The only difficulty is defining when the travel to or from work begins and ends, for example, is going through a drive-thru an intervening activity only after which the travel to work should be considered to begin?

Even under the formulation the HC has developed in this case, such things would still be covered. The employer induces you to attend work, many work places encourage workers to bond with colleagues and do things to maintaing their health such as physical activity.

The HC had previously in the context of state compensation regimes, set a rather broad test that was arguably beyond what the legislation had intended. Lower courts had complained even that they were bound by such broad standards. So in a way this is the HC being a bit more practical about things.

Felix the Cat4:17 pm 30 Oct 13

Robertson said :

OK, so the first problem with this case has been solved: No, you can’t behave like a f&^%$wit and expect the taxpayer to fund you.

Part 2 is as yet unresolved: an individual has spent years causing escalating expense to the taxpayer with a completely immoral attempt to carve out some public funds, and yet this person is *still* being cloaked in anonymity. Why? Who else gets anonymity in this way? We’ve been taken for a ride, and now we are entitled to know the name of the %#$^wit who took us on it.

Why is a person engaged in cosensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room a “f&^%$wit”? Comcare disputed that compensation was deserved and High Court found in Comcare’s favour. That doesn’t make the person making the claim a f&^%$wit.

What difference is it going to make to your or anyone else’s life if the the person is named? Let them have their anonymity. Most posters on here use anonymous screen names when posting here. I have no need or desire to know yours or anybody else on here’s real name.

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Absolutely – in my humble opinion anyway.

Going out for a coffee is not part of your duties at work, therefore shouldn’t be covered by workers compensation. There’s nothing the employer could have done to make that activity safer for you, so they’re not at fault.

I don’t think you can claim workers comp if you’re in a car accident on the way to or from work either. Sounds like the same principle to me.

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

I mean, if your boss says, “Go down the road and get some staples, we’ve run out”, and you go down the road, trip and break your leg, then clearly you can malinger for months with odd and unresolvable complaints about mysterious backpains, and you’ll get compo. Because you were doing something your work induced you to do. And you’re immoral and keen to scrounge.

But going for coffee? Work never told you to do that.

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

We are not covered outside of work on a normal work day so no. This has been the case since the howard era when he took away workers comp for travelling to & from work.

On this matter, let me ask the nay-sayers this: If I am away (directed to be by work) should I not be covered by workers comp?

Ghettosmurf873:51 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Makes sense to me, coffee is definitely not a requirement

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Why would anybody expect to be able to claim workers’ compo when they are neither doing work nor even present at their workplace?

Public servants truly are a species apart, aren’t they…

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Agreed. I thought she shouldn’t have gotten compo because either her or her partner used the light fitting for a purpose it was clearly not designed for. But the words in the article would seem to be more far reaching than that.

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

OK, so the first problem with this case has been solved: No, you can’t behave like a f&^%$wit and expect the taxpayer to fund you.

Part 2 is as yet unresolved: an individual has spent years causing escalating expense to the taxpayer with a completely immoral attempt to carve out some public funds, and yet this person is *still* being cloaked in anonymity. Why? Who else gets anonymity in this way? We’ve been taken for a ride, and now we are entitled to know the name of the %#$^wit who took us on it.

poetix said :

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

The light fitting was.

Ah .. nice one

HiddenDragon3:09 pm 30 Oct 13

So glad we no longer have appeals to the Privy Council.

The essence of the decision sounds reasonable and sensible to me, and for those who seem to think there should be no practical limit on the taxpayers’ liability to people who grace the public sector with their presence, reflect, for a moment, on the fact that had this case gone the other way, it would have provided a mightily attractive reason for a truly draconian, root and branch review of the Comcare system.

thebrownstreak693:08 pm 30 Oct 13

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

Not after she was smashed in the face with a light fitting.

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

The light fitting was.

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

This.

It’s the only thing I’ve wanted to know or cared about since this story broke.

Just out of curiosity I wonder how the court would have ruled if a light fitting had fallen on someone’s head while they were sleeping in a hotel on a work trip?

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

It’s a sad day for all office shaggers 🙁

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.