Update: Injured during motel tryst, employee gets workers’ comp
April 30, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: Injuries, new court decision, Special Report, Updated story, Workers' comp
PDF 
Last year we told you about an Australian government worker who was on a business trip when she was injured while having a tryst with a friend in the motel room where she was staying. She applied for workers’ comp benefits. Now, a court has decided the case.
A federal judge in Australia says pay her the comp benefits for the injury that occurred during the motel sex.
The worker, whose name has been withheld, was required to travel and stay overnight to attend a meeting the next day.
The woman arranged to meet a friend for dinner. After dinner, they went back to her hotel room and had sex. While that was happening, a glass light fixture fell off the wall and injured the woman. She suffered injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth. The woman later filed a claim for having suffered facial and psychological injuries.
The claim was based on the argument that she suffered the injuries “during the course of her employment” because she was required to travel.
One court had denied the woman workers’ comp benefits because the tryst was “not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping and eating.”
However, on appeal, an Australian justice says sex is an “ordinary incident of life.”
“If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room, she would have been entitled to compensation,” the justice wrote in his opinion. “The fact that the applicant was engaged in sexual activity rather than some other lawful recreational activity does not lead to any different result.”
It did not matter whether her injury “was expressly or impliedly induced or encouraged by her employer,” the justice opined. She was injured in the “course of employment.”
A lawyer for her employer (the government) had argued there wasn’t enough connection between the incident and what the woman was being employed to do. However, the justice rejected that argument.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments below.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: business trip, in the course of employment, injured during tryst, motel sex
Loading ...
April 30th, 2012 at 11:17 am
I’m surprised she didn’t sue the hotel for the injury.
April 30th, 2012 at 11:19 am
WHAT?????????????
April 30th, 2012 at 11:23 am
And we thought our (the U.S.) system was flawed.
May 1st, 2012 at 5:45 am
It really doesn’t matter what she was doing in the motel room.
Same as at home. She should still be on her own time then.
Few people are actually on the “job” 24/7.
May 1st, 2012 at 6:46 am
Food for thought. If she had gotten pregnant would workers comp be paying child support !
May 1st, 2012 at 7:36 am
Help us all!
May 1st, 2012 at 7:57 am
I agree with the judge. She was in the hotel because of business. What would have been the difference had the lamp fell during her sleeping?
May 1st, 2012 at 8:23 am
It took a while to quit laughing over this one! I have heard of a lot of unusual WC claims over the years but never have I heard of one of this nature! She would have been financially ahead suing the hotel. WC only pays a percentage of your income. Now she has burned a bridge with her employer that may not be able to be repaired. There will always be a sense of distrust between them if she still has her job. If she is still employed, she will be watched closely and documented. At the first opportunity, once they have documentation and all of their ducks in a row, you can take it to the bank that she will be terminated. That’s just the way it works.
May 1st, 2012 at 8:47 am
Yeah, totally makes sense. There’s not enough details regarding the fixture, though. Were they actually hanging from the fixture? Or did the fixture just fall because it was not secured properly? What if the woman was just sleeping in the bed and a couple next door caused enough vibration for the light fixture to fall in her room? Would that be considered work comp? Of course it would.
When considering how the law works, it is usually “in the course of work”. When being assigned to travel, then it is “for work”. Would the person have been in this situation otherwise? No. And if they were on travel for vacation, then their workplace would not be responsible.
Therefore, this is not flawed, it is the law. Sometimes you have to remove petty morals to see the truth.
May 1st, 2012 at 9:01 am
Reeaallly???!!!!
May 1st, 2012 at 9:22 am
@ Jez. I am in complete agreement with you. The point isn’t that she was having sex. The point is she was injured and wouldn’t have been in the hotel had she not had to travel for work. No one would be laughing had she been a sleep when the accident occurred or had she slipped in the tub.
May 1st, 2012 at 9:41 am
The Australian Justice stated that sex is a “ordinary incident of life” - speak for yourself buddy!!! The rest of us don’t see it as ordinary and may not be so lucky!
May 1st, 2012 at 9:47 am
The judge is incompetent. If this is where we are going the woman should be fired for having sex on the job.
If she caught a STD, this judge would have given her comp.
What a disgrace to intelligence.
May 1st, 2012 at 9:52 am
Question for those who support the decision: I sometimes have to travel and stay overnight. I sometimes take by dirt bike along and ride it in the evenings. If I injure myself, then would I be allowed workmen’s compensation? After all, dirt bike riding is an “ordinary incident of life” for me. If not for the required travel, I would not have been on that particular trail, just as this woman would not have been in that particular motel room.
May 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
When required to travel for work, injuries incurred are coverable by workman’s comp. If you are in an auto accident while travelling to or from a work-related, work-required seminar, your injuries are covered by work comp. That being said, I can’t imagine having the nerve to admit that you were injured in your motel room while having sex-couldn’t one just say that you were dancing?
May 1st, 2012 at 10:11 am
I agree with the judge as well. If the sex had not been labeled a “tryst” and she was with her lawful spouse, do you think you would feel the same? It could have happened whether she had had sex or not. I do agree too with one of the other posters, it seems to me that the motel should have been sued, rather than being a workers comp case. However, we don’t really know all the details of the case, just the snippets presented here.
May 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
THIS TYPE OF THING IS WHAT DRIVES THE COST OF INSURANCE UP ….. Plus makes companies afraid so we all have to sign all kinds of waivers.
If she had been on business in Vegas and after the “work day” was over was injuries as she was having a great time gambling (something that some would have to pay to go do) would
Work comp have to pay then ….. I say NO WAY ……. This kind of madness needs to stop ….. We all need to be responsible for our own actions ….. What if she choked to death during dinner on a business trip …. What makes that any different than eating at home , other than she did not have to pay for the meal ? ……… And just what were the physiological injuries ? …. Is she afraid of light fixtures now ? ….. Just wonder if she was married and screwing around , would she have made a claim ……. THE WORK COMP LIABILITY SHOULD END AS SOON AS ONE IS RELEASED FROM DUTY AND FREE TO ENGAGE IN PERSONAL OR PRIVATE FUNCTIONS !!!! ….. Again this is the type of case that drives our cost of living up !!
May 1st, 2012 at 10:34 am
Ron, according to what I have read, you would get comp. So don’t be afraid of ripping up some mud or trying a few jumps with your bike next time you travel for your company. You’re injuries would be covered including the “Psychological Injuries” because some mud splattered on you. But only in Australia.
May 1st, 2012 at 10:42 am
Yes sex is a normal activity for consenting adults, and yes she would not have been there except for being sent there on business. But come on I have been sent on business and had hotel/motel rooms for overnight stays………….It has never been considered part of business that having sex (unless you are a sex worker but that is a whole other can of worms) on your employers property is okay. And most organizations frown on that activity even if you are off duty. Generally even if off duty and you are caught in a “compromising position with another adult in the employers property” you would be at least disciplined up to and including terminated.
The employer paid for the room making the room the employer’s property therefore the rules of conduct for the work place apply to the room. In-addition the employee was there in the employer’s property to accomplish part of her job assignment or do what she is paid to do. Grooming oneself eating watching TV and movies are all part of normal life even in down time at work but sex?
I guess the same rule would apply to people who work in healthcare or emergency services when they are put up over night and they have a tryst with someone in the areas supplied by the employer on the employer’s property the tryst is okay? I think not
I missed out as I should have moved to Australia back when I was young enough to cash in on this little benefit. I would not mind having an employer that would support my having play time at their expense…..
Geezzzz but here in the US I have had to terminate folk for sexual activity when on duty or when still on the employers property even when off duty.
Obviously I do not agree with the copurt (and most of the time I can see and agree with how WC benefits’ should be awarded and most of the time I am in favor of the employee) …….But I really believe she should have said the fixture fell on her and left it at that and just covered her medical treatment with her health insurance…
May 1st, 2012 at 10:50 am
I’m guessing that guy’s not going to want a second date with her if this happened on their first one. =;o)
May 1st, 2012 at 11:03 am
Ron- if you were on a trail that collapsed because it was not properly reinforced/secured, and you and your bike went off a cliff, you (or your beneficiary) could sue the owner of the trail. The same should be in this case- she or her employer should have sued the hotel for not having properly secured the light fixture.
And I agree with you Jeff- some of us are not so lucky to consider sex an ordinary incidence of life, but we must not let our own personal beefs, hang ups or sexual insecurities cloud our judgment. Tryst or no tryst? Lawful husband or a homeless man she picked up on the street? Virgin Mary or an ignorant slut blowing an entire soccer team? Who cares? It is irrelevant!
May 1st, 2012 at 11:18 am
@ Ron: If you injured yourself on a dirt bike while on a work trip, I doubt you would be able to claim a worker’s comp injury for that. Yes, you would have to stay in a hotel room during the course of your overnight work trip, and it becomes an office at that point. However, you wouldn’t have to go riding dirt bikes as part of your job. If the woman was sleeping and this fell on her, you may have been more amenable to compensating her.
In America, they are beginning to disallow injuries that are not work-related, even if they happen in the workplace, i.e., burn your hand making yourself lunch in the microwave at work. So she probably wouldn’t be able to make a claim for worker’s comp.
May 1st, 2012 at 12:14 pm
The only thing I can think is that she was having sex with this judge who is married and know she has dirt on him that he doesn’t want his wife to find out about.
May 1st, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Interesting case… applying most US WC law as I understand it:
She would not have been in that bed “but for” the fact that her employer put her there in the course of her employment (regardless of what she was doing) … therefore, her injuries were compensable.
If her injury was the result of some personal mission that was not related to work (like riding a dirt bike), that would have been outside the course of employment, and probably not compensable. This argument would probably also apply to consequences (e.g. STD, pregnancy) that were solely caused by her activities.
PS - since she successfully filed a WC claim, she cannot sue her employer - but she CAN still sue the hotel (although some of the money will go back to her employer).
May 1st, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Alright Paul, What if the women was in the her pimps room. Oops I mean what if she was in her friends room, would she still get comp. Also, if the employer paid for that room for her to work in per say, What was the friend doing in there? He’s not employed by her company so what is he doing on company property? I say company property because the company paid for that room for company business only. Maybe the should go after her friend for trespassing on company property. (see alecfinn’s post) After all she was there only because of the company.
May 1st, 2012 at 2:31 pm
ALL FACTORS CONSIDERED . I STILL SHESHOULDN’T GET COMP
May 1st, 2012 at 4:23 pm
This Monday’s Safety Meeting Topic is…….. Practicing Safe Sex.
May 1st, 2012 at 4:38 pm
So if she had been in the hotel room shooting up drugs and OD’d then work would have had to pay for the hospital visit. What about drug treatment?
May 2nd, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Most companies have a drug policy, so no that should not be covered under comp.
Apparently we need something like a “personal time policy relating to business trips” too. We wouldnt have sex at work on a normal day so how is this covered? This would be concidered off duty time. Well for most of us anyway.
I work for a company that has overnight trips a lot. If an employee comes back pregnant from that trip (which has happened) it is not even thought of as work comp. Because it happened after the work shift was over.
Just Sayin…
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 am
Thanks Angela you ‘re a light in the darkness….. a voice of reason
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:46 am
I fail to understand why the Judge did not see the hotel/motel room as an extension of the work place as it is paid for(rented) for an employee to be able to work from (as in going to a meeting in another place too far from home to travel).
Where I work and have worked here in the US it was always expected that we would behave when on company property if we are on duty or off.
Perhaps a policy is the best way to go but that seems at least to me the same as the General Duty Clause from OSHA. Many complain that we are over regulated but frequently those complaining will also cite that there is no standard covering the incident. In most cases I do not see the need for a specific standard………In this case contracting HIV because the employer failed to train and supply condoms and safe sex training? That covered by WC? Again to me a huge “NO” as that is not in the course of employment or condoned on company property.
I am unaware of any organization in the Government or for that matter in most of the private sector that encourages sexual activity on their premises. Of course there is Las Vegas Nevada where there are brothels that are legal but on the overall sex is not considered desirable on an employer’s property. Renting a hotel/motel room makes you a temporary owner of that room if your employer pays it is the employer’s property.
If you choose to do something there such as having a sexual encounter that is on you and not your employer. In fact if it were me I would take care of any injuries on my own and not file for WC. A real accident such as a slip in the shower yes but exclusive intense interpersonal encounters I think not and I believe the second judge got it wrong.
To condone this opens the door to too many stupid things that no employer should have to deal with. To me it is the same as the General Duty Clause from OSHA. Sex on an employer’s property I think not………..An injury that comes from a random accident? Yes…… WC.
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:56 am
The first link in the story goes to a site that includes a more graphic description of the activity. From that, it seems more likely than not that the sex caused the lamp to fall. Had she used the room just for playing cards or sleeping, the incident probably would not have occurred. It is the probability that the non-work related, voluntary activity led to the injury that causes me to question the judge’s ruling.
May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56 am
I still feel the employee should have sued the hotel, and not filed a worker’s comp claim, given that the employer is not at fault here. The hotel owes a duty of care to its guests to provide a safe place to sleep. It doesn’t matter if this happened while she was having sex, or if it would have fallen while she was sleeping. She is paying for a room that is safe; she is not just paying for cushy pillows.
I have to wonder why she didn’t file with her health insurance company (what are the rules for this in Australia, I wonder?) a temporary disability claim based on a non-work related accident. In America, this is offered by most health insurance companies.
Or she could have just taken a few sick days, for Pete’s sake!
May 3rd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Maybe she was handcuffed to the light fixture when it mysteriously fell off the wall during her sexual event. I’m sure the fixture was secured to the wall somehow. She shouldn’t get anything from anyone. She seemed to be using the companies expenses for her and her friend to have a free room. Maybe she went crazy when she reached her peak.
May 9th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Its been my experience that when travelling on business, once you are off work for the day you are on your own time. This can’t be a comp claim when its the same as being injured off duty and on your own time. I find it hard to believe that someone could be on the company clock for 24 hours a day.
May 24th, 2012 at 9:50 am
I feel a lot of you are not being subjective to the situation at hand and jumping to conclusions. The story really does not give the whole picture but just a sensational spin on what may or may not have happened. Jez I feel has it right. We don’t know the details of the incident. The fixture may have been in poor repair. Was it mounted to a wall or the ceiling? How does the intercourse between the woman and her lover relate to the incident? Is it even related? What is the companies policy on having a little fun while on a business trip? What is the norm? The company may be able to discipline the employee for the “tryst” on their property but the events leading up to the incident as stated by this article are unclear. As professionals we should not jump to conclusions based upon incomplete evidence or moral hang ups.
May 24th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Aaron, I agree that we should not jump to conclusions and much information is not known! However, This is not about moral hang-ups. The fact that the incident took place as a result of a more personal activity and not contributing to the business should not mean that an employer have to bear the burden/expense of any/all activities that a traveling employee be involved in.
May 24th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Aaron, I feel that you, yourself, have jumped to the conclusion that we are all jumping to conclusions. All we are doing is posting our thoughts and opinions on what the article (or meaning of) is stating.
Oh, by the way, the article states that the fixture (glass) fell off the wall. So why you are questioning that it may have fallen off the ceiling? The article also states the intercourse caused the incident. So why are you questioning if the two are related?
Did you read the article?