Sexual Intercourse While Swinging From A Motel Chandelier: Employer Held Liable For Injuries

Originally posted by So Fresh So Clean

And another thought:

How can someone be so convinced their employer is in the wrong that they persist beyond lower courts to the federal court over the matter?

Originally posted by DanielG It's a Aussie workman's comp suit. I just thought it was funny as hell.

Originally posted by switch

Chandelier sex is just SOP?

Originally posted by switch

Firstly, it's hilarious. 

Secondly, how in the blazes does anyone have the King-Kong-sized balls do go to their employer with this? 

This is a neat and tidy article that succinctly shows how effed we are.  $10 says she tweeted about her escapade and subsequent injury while in the ER.

Jo--what the heck is going on here?  Chandelier sex is just SOP?

Originally posted by DanielGI always thought a ceiling fan and a hammock was okay, this is just kinky :)

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I'm not surprised. WC is really lenient in the US as well. Basically, if you are injured at work (or traveling for work), short of intentionally injuring yourself, the injury will be covered under WC. It seems outrageous, esp in cases like this, but the reality is that the law is intentionally set up to be as broad and lenient as possible and both sides are protected as a result. Employees don't have to worry about having to prove that their injury wasn't the result of their own or someone else's negligence, and employers don't have to worry about being sued for millions of dollars every time a worker drops a box on their toe. By having WC set up as the exclusive remedy, and also setting the bar really low in terms of the standard for paying outs WC claims keeps work-related injuries out of civil courts and saves everyone money. Having said that, she should have claimed she was doing chin-ups or something.

Originally posted by switch

First rule is you gotta be able to trust your equipment. No way I'm trustin a chandelier or a ceiling fan.

Originally posted by DanielG Y'know, I just about posted, "Well, put it in yourself" But for some reason that didn't sound right.

Originally posted by switch

LMAO. I always prefer to place my own pro.

Actually, I must be really boring, as I just can't imagine why a chandelier or a ceiling fan--really anything with overhead suspension--would be a net gain.  The angle seems all wrong.

Originally posted by trigal38

Interesting and people have a lot more feelings of entitlement than I do. I've been working at the Y teacher Toddler Gym for 5 years. Two days a week I drag out heavy mats and other equipment then put it all back again after class. I have effed up my back a couple of times trying to lift the mats to put them away. I just always blamed myself for having a bad back but I guess I could have filed workers comp.

Originally posted by mr2tony You're doing it wrong.

Originally posted by TheCrownsOwn

"I'm not surprised. WC is really lenient in the US as well. Basically, if you are injured at work (or traveling for work), short of intentionally injuring yourself, the injury will be covered under WC.
It seems outrageous, esp in cases like this, but the reality is that the law is intentionally set up to be as broad and lenient as possible and both sides are protected as a result. Employees don't have to worry about having to prove that their injury wasn't the result of their own or someone else's negligence, and employers don't have to worry about being sued for millions of dollars every time a worker drops a box on their toe. By having WC set up as the exclusive remedy, and also setting the bar really low in terms of the standard for paying outs WC claims keeps work-related injuries out of civil courts and saves everyone money.

Having said that, she should have claimed she was doing chin-ups or something."




WSIB in Ontario is all but bankrupt....and runs on the same premise it sounds just like your WC. It is In such financial struggle that the governing Liberals put a fiscal conservative in charge of it last year....the broad reaching and lenient approach..like virtually all social systems is just waiting to collapse under its own ideology.

WC or WSIB has some great benefits, but some critical flaws that make it doomed to failure...your statement it saves everyone money is...well...its wrong. lol. At least here in Ontario. Premiums keep going up, rules keep changing...and people keep claiming. It's essentially unsustainable.

1) WSIB's premise is that everyone is completely honest and not out for personal gain like every other social program. Unfortunately, the system is ripe with corruption. Even more unfortunate those with legitimate claims can be held up because of the number of the abuse of the system.

2)By legitimizing claims like an injury not related to work (sex) on a business trip, it is now entitling society to think that its there right. Enter a whole new wave of claims for injuries undertaken for personal pleasure/interests whether on the company time/dime or not. Crossing the road to go to a restaurant to eat while on a business trip sounds legitimate. You have to eat. No argument there. But lets put aside the "sex" act for a second and say that the lady decided to go to a Theme park, or a museum or something and was injured there while on a business trip....does she have a claim? Perhaps not...but there is now case law on the books to help wedge open the door to allow a claim for something like this to occur in the future. Under systems that are financially crippled right now which are only going to get worse....and all joking aside...the entitlement and whats worse the legitimization of something like this tells society as a whole..."its ok" will spoil it for the rest of us. Because at the end of the day...its us..or in this case the Aussie taxpayer who has to foot the bill. Nothing is for free....

Funny story on the surface, until you get you file your taxes....then reality starts to set in.

Whats the answer? I have no idea. Your absolutely right about the courts, etc. because we've also seen this occur in some jurisdictions....but State monopolized and governed compensation and insurance doesn't work. At least not here. Don't believe me? Look at WSIB 20 years ago and then now....under the current trend...it can't be here in another 20 in it's current state....

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn You certainly could have. I don't really see it as entitlement. If you were genuinely injured and needed medical care, you could have, and should have filed a WC claim. If you weren't injured to the extent to which you needed medical attention, then you shouldn't have filed a claim or it would be fraud. Why is it entitlement to receive benefits from a program legally and in the manner in which the program was designed to work? If we pretend that the case above took place in the US, and if the woman was straightforward about what caused the injuries, and if those injuries fell within the parameters of what's covered under WC, why shouldn't she be covered? If she was on the business trip and was on her way to dinner and she was hit by a car crossing the street to the restaurant, she'd be covered under WC even though she wasn't in the office at the time. If she was playing basketball at the company picnic and tore her ACL, again, she'd be covered under WC. And, again, it's not up her to decide whether to file the claim as WC or not. When she got to the hospital, they asked her "did this injury happen during working hours". If she had said no, and her personal insurance had paid the claim, if it came out that she was actually on a business trip, she could be sued by her personal insurance carrier.