Tweet
Clearly putting in overtime, an Australian woman says she is entitled to workers compensation after she was injured while having sex in a motel room during a business trip. She claims she suffered a “psychiatric injury” (damn, was he that ugly?), as well as injuries to her mouth and nose, when a glass light fixture in her room smashed down onto her head while she was having sex with “an acquaintance” (aka, complete stranger).
The woman’s lawyer argued that the woman is entitled to compensation because sex is “an ordinary incident of life,” like showering, sleeping and eating. He continued that since the woman was required to spend the night in a motel chosen by her department, they should have informed her that having sex while on a business trip was not appropriate. (Because most business contracts outline this, obviously.)
“My client was actually quite significantly injured and emotionally traumatized, both by her injury and the way it has been reported as a subject of fun, which for her it is not,” he stated. Meanwhile, the insurance company argued that the woman should not be compensated because having sex has no relation to the woman’s job and took place outside the course of her employment. He maintained that the woman would only have a case if her employer “required” her to have sex or if she were able to prove that having sex was reasonably incidental to her work-related trip. It’s not clear when a verdict will be issued.
terrible bapping accident
The woman’s lawyer argued that the woman is entitled to compensation because sex is “an ordinary incident of life,” like showering, sleeping and eating. He continued that since the woman was required to spend the night in a motel chosen by her department, they should have informed her that having sex while on a business trip was not appropriate. (Because most business contracts outline this, obviously.)
“My client was actually quite significantly injured and emotionally traumatized, both by her injury and the way it has been reported as a subject of fun, which for her it is not,” he stated. Meanwhile, the insurance company argued that the woman should not be compensated because having sex has no relation to the woman’s job and took place outside the course of her employment. He maintained that the woman would only have a case if her employer “required” her to have sex or if she were able to prove that having sex was reasonably incidental to her work-related trip. It’s not clear when a verdict will be issued.
terrible bapping accident
Comment