So she did nothing legally wrong, she was there because of her job, she gets injured, she goes to worker’s comp. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

Shump on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Have you ever heard of contributory negligence?

It doesn’t matter that her actions weren’t illegal.

Okay, never.

The purpose of workers’ compensation is to make it easier on the employee. If a person is in a hotel on work-related business, and they get injured, then they do go to workers’ comp first. It’s up to workers’ comp to go after the hotel, or whoever else, to recover damages if they see fit. But the whole idea is that the employee doesn’t have to go sue the hotel or whomever else. They deal with workers’ comp and that’s it.

In this case, she was on business travel. The fact that she was having sex is irrelevant. She would not have been in that room were it not for her job. And she was not engaging in any unusually risky or irresponsible activity. Well, at least not from the workers’ compensation perspective. But a person would reasonably expect to be able to have sex in a hotel room and that not cause a light fixture to fall down.

So she did nothing legally wrong, she was there because of her job, she gets injured, she goes to worker’s comp. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

With regards to the hang gliding sneer above, yes, the same applies. In fact, under NYS law if a person is on duty, only the workers comp carrier is on the hook.

patch on December 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Which is why employers will be releasing a list of activities that can’t be performed while on company time.

I was involved with workers compensation for years in New york State. Government emplyees while on official travel are considered to be on the job until they return to their home.

With regards to the hang gliding sneer above, yes, the same applies. In fact, under NYS law if a person is on duty, only the workers comp carrier is on the hook.

Maybe the hotel has empty pockets, and the agency doesn’t.

Lawyers always go after whoever has the resources to pay the damages.

The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Slight correction: Lawyers always go after everyone, but especially those who have the resources to pay the damages.

Here’s a question: why wouldn’t the liability fall entirely on the motel?

Inability to pay?

Lawyers always go after whoever has the resources to pay the damages.

Here’s a question: why wouldn’t the liability fall entirely on the motel?

It probably should, but it would be a convoluted process. Just as if she had gotten in an auto wreck on her way to the conference, she would not have been in the circumstance except for her job. Doesn’t matter what she was doing. She could have been sleeping, lashed out with her hand and jarred the light fixture loose. If the hotel refuses to pay, she files with her employer, who then goes after the hotel for reimbursement.

He wrote back to either skip Australia all together and just go to NZ or just stay away from the cities like Melbourne and Sydney.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I left Australia 6 years ago after a happy 19 years there. There is (or at least was, and I’m sure it won’t have changed that much) some good stuff there. The beaches are amazing, Christmas through to the end of January in Sydney is great fun. Both Sydney and Melbourne benefit considerably from their mix of cultural influences: Western meets Mediterranean & Middle-Eastern meets Asian: you can eat some innovative and delicious food.

Small-town Australia is something that you really should get to experience, but you have to manage your expectations correctly: it’s simple and earthy. You won’t find white-tablecloth restaurants, luxury-goods outlets or “beautiful people”. You can see the “tourist attractions” as cheezy or you can see them from the perspective of Aussie self-deprecating humor; the latter is more fun. But don’t be afraid of the dingy-looking little pub. The food there might just be sensational. Think small-town Texas with a twist.

It saddens me that the same type of one-worlders who now hold sway here in the U.S. have taken over Australia. The once-”lucky” country can now be described by another adjective with the letters “u-c-k” in it. Study it if you want to see our future.

If having sex was her “job,” then wouldn’t the guy who was paying her be responsible for her worker’s comp?

logis on December 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

she’s a prostitute. FIFY

She was treated in hospital for injuries to her nose and face and later suffered depression and was unable to continue in her job.

Huh, severe embarrassment is covered by worker’s comp? Has Jesse Jackson, Jr. weighed in on this decision?

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

He gave you good advice. Adelaide and Perth are fine, along with the Northern Territory, but the east coast is best forgotten.

One must remember that, for all intents and purposes, Australia is now a communist country. Federal workers are a special class, being allowed to milk the system at will.

OldEnglish on December 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I spoke with a friend from Australia I’d made on LiveLeak. He paints a gloomy picture there for the Urban areas. I told him I’d planned a trip to Australia and New Zealand for Mrs Hawkdriver (not her real name) and myself. He wrote back to either skip Australia all together and just go to NZ or just stay away from the cities like Melbourne and Sydney.

I imagine that this will have a chilling effect in Australia on business travel.

I assume that employers will issue books full of “what activities are restricted while on business travel.”

The court ruled that the woman could have been playing cards, and that her activity was immaterial.

Really? What if she had been hand gliding? What if she had been skate boarding down stairs? Are all activities suddenly covered while traveling for an employer?