Maestro Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Public servant loses sex injury compo claim October 30, 2013 The Canberra public servant denied compensation for injuries sustained in a "vigorous" sex session six years ago says she has moved on. The High Court ruled in Canberra on Wednesday that the woman, hurt while having sex in a country motel while on a work trip, was not entitled to compensation from the federal workplace insurer Comcare because her injuries were not related to her employment. The court found that the bureaucrat's department did not induce or require her to have sex with a local man in Nowra in November 2007 and the injuries sustained during the hook-up were not ''compensable''. But after four years before the courts, the case still divides legal opinion with two of the High Court judges disagreeing with the majority of their colleagues and arguing the woman, whose name has been suppressed by the courts, should have been paid out. Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/public-servant-loses-sex-injury-compo-claim-20131030-2wf3n.html#ixzz2jEZqTu1M -- The Canberra Times 2013-10-30 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 It is interesting what some people consider to be a work-related injury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1Str8 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 How did she get hurt? She realized that she was stupid and it was painful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Apparently it had something to do with light fixtures coming off the wall and broken glass? Maybe she was getting ready for the Olympics? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Andre0720 Posted October 31, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted October 31, 2013 Well, she was a public servant serving the public.... Should be paid... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsw53 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Pity for her she did not work for the vice squad. She could have claimed she was doing market research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post johnnycthedog Posted October 31, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted October 31, 2013 Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeO Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. This is a typical McDonalds hot coffee (Stella) case. In the US, she would have been made a millionaire. Thankfully the courts in other Western countries, such as Australia and the UK, see these claims for what they are ... groundless..! I'm surprised that the judges were split though; how did the dissenters see this as being work related? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 well at least she wasn't banged up abroad..uh wait a sec.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topt Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. This is a typical McDonalds hot coffee (Stella) case. In the US, she would have been made a millionaire. Thankfully the courts in other Western countries, such as Australia and the UK, see these claims for what they are ... groundless..! I'm surprised that the judges were split though; how did the dissenters see this as being work related? Agree with you completely. I read this a couple of days ago (I think BBC online?)and thought how can anyone think they should be paid compensation for this. I could see a case against the hotel if the fixture was faulty but who expects a light fitting or whatever to be a solid support for some bedroom gymnastics....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. This is a typical McDonalds hot coffee (Stella) case. In the US, she would have been made a millionaire. Thankfully the courts in other Western countries, such as Australia and the UK, see these claims for what they are ... groundless..! I'm surprised that the judges were split though; how did the dissenters see this as being work related? Clueless comment about McDonald's case. The plaintiff had 3rd degree burns on 6 % of her skin (including groin), 2nd degree burns on 16 % of her skin, underwent skin grafts and spent 8 days in the hospital. She lost 20% of her body weight and underwent medical treatment for 2 years. She initially demanded $10,000, but McDonald's offered $ 800. Mediator suggested McDonalds pay $ 225,000. They refused. The jury heard evidence that McDonalds served the coffee at 180 degrees as market research showed this increased sales by x amount per year even though McDonald was on notice (700 prior claims) that the high temperature was burning people and causing injuries. Experts opined that anything above 130 degrees constituted a dangerous burn risk. The jury awarded $ 160,000 for medically and 2.7 million in punitives. The trial judge reduced the award to $ 640,000. The lawyer gets a 1/3, plus perhaps $ 30,000 in expenses to try case and the insurance company or hospital are subrogated for medical bills. The parties settled during appeal for an undisclosed amount less than $ 600,000. At the end of the day, she netted perhaps $ 100,000 for extremely horrific and painful burns to her groin that required skin grafting and medical treatment for 2 years. Edited October 31, 2013 by F430murci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 It's a little off-topic, but I believe that McDonald's subsequently had their coffee makers adjusted so the coffee is not so hot. Not 100% sure, but I believe I read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
advancebooking Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 bad luck to the australian money grabbing bogan from canberra... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Post is useless without pictures. Is she a hottie or skankie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 In Thailand, there would have been a re-enactment. That would be interesting to see. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetleythedog Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. Does this mean i can claim against my UK ex wife ? She was a sexual nightmare for 26 years ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokpoppys Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. This is a typical McDonalds hot coffee (Stella) case. In the US, she would have been made a millionaire. Thankfully the courts in other Western countries, such as Australia and the UK, see these claims for what they are ... groundless..! I'm surprised that the judges were split though; how did the dissenters see this as being work related? The shhhteeewpid part about this case is that it took the high court to decide. A real case of <deleted>. I mean having a shag she claimed was on work time - literally "come-on"! Just because the gov't is paying for your room doesn't mean it is work time, unless you are shagging between 9-5. A case where Thai justice in it's technical sense wouldn't stand for this. Russia has a good system too - you have to identify % fault of each person before settling. Just a shame that there was a bunch of public funding wasted defending it, and no real lesson learned. Nice one Australia, the lucky country at it's finest - at least she was until the light came off the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 This made the news here in Australia yesterday. One of the classic lines to emerge from the Summation ... "There, in what was described in an earlier court as a "vigorous" bout of non-sleeping, a light fitting above the bed was ripped loose. a "vigorous" bout of non-sleeping ... You can read the extended story and the 1 page (that's got to be a record in brevity) High Court summation here, courtesy of the SMH . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landslide Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I suppose if she got an STD, she would have gone after compensation, as well. In the USA, it would have been one of the government unions footing her legal bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klauskunkel Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If she had won the claim...could you then extrapolate that Australian public servants get paid for having sex during work?...which would make them prostitutes?...and their employer would be pimps?... just some musings, have nothing better to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Comcare's picking up the whole High Court costs for both parties. Should make the b-itch pay the whole cost. This is how Public Servants get a bad name in Australia. Your taxes paying for this c-rap. Probably some left wing union type. Anyone with an ounce of decency and self ownership of the problem would never have tried to take the Govt. for a ride. This is a typical McDonalds hot coffee (Stella) case. In the US, she would have been made a millionaire. Thankfully the courts in other Western countries, such as Australia and the UK, see these claims for what they are ... groundless..! I'm surprised that the judges were split though; how did the dissenters see this as being work related? Clueless comment about McDonald's case.The plaintiff had 3rd degree burns on 6 % of her skin (including groin), 2nd degree burns on 16 % of her skin, underwent skin grafts and spent 8 days in the hospital. She lost 20% of her body weight and underwent medical treatment for 2 years. She initially demanded $10,000, but McDonald's offered $ 800. Mediator suggested McDonalds pay $ 225,000. They refused. The jury heard evidence that McDonalds served the coffee at 180 degrees as market research showed this increased sales by x amount per year even though McDonald was on notice (700 prior claims) that the high temperature was burning people and causing injuries. Experts opined that anything above 130 degrees constituted a dangerous burn risk. The jury awarded $ 160,000 for medically and 2.7 million in punitives. The trial judge reduced the award to $ 640,000. The lawyer gets a 1/3, plus perhaps $ 30,000 in expenses to try case and the insurance company or hospital are subrogated for medical bills. The parties settled during appeal for an undisclosed amount less than $ 600,000. At the end of the day, she netted perhaps $ 100,000 for extremely horrific and painful burns to her groin that required skin grafting and medical treatment for 2 years. *Deleted post edited out* She was not driving. She was a passenger. They were parked and she tried to add cream and sugar and it spilled. Some of you guys are pretty opinionated for people uninformed of the facts. *edited* Edited October 31, 2013 by Scott Inappropriate remark edited out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now