So It Is Not Just Here Then

[youngmafbog]

http://news.sky.com/story/1161478/sex-injury-compensation-case-woman-loses-bid

How the woman thought she should be eligible for compo is beyond me, but then she is a civil servant so I guess it is no surprise.

At least the high court have seen sense, luckily the Aussies aren't part of the EHCR or she would probably be back on the compo trail.

I think if it had been me I would have kept quiet and legged it before they billed me for the damage.

Wonder if she was done for criminal damage?

[friedgreentomato]

YMB - being a civil servant has nothing to do with it - don't tar them all with the same brush!

[society]

Now that's what you called 'being caught out on a technicality' :)

[boxtops]

How completely ridiculous. When I worked in insurance, one of the yardsticks we used for determining possible liability was reasonableness - could it reasonably be expected that a guest in that room would rip out the light fitting and injure themselves? No, of course not. That's extraordinary.

[boxtops]

... and I seriously don't understand why she tried to claim from her employer - unless she has a very unusual job, wild nookie is not usually part of the job description.....

[sandyRoe]

I always thought that swinging from the chandeliers was risky and asking for trouble.

[boxtops]

..especially if the candles are lit, sandy :-)

[sandyRoe]

Candles lit? Doing it with the lights on? That's risqué. :-)

[jno]

I notice they said her partner was not an employee; it might have made a difference if he was.

She could still, I would have thought, sue the motel.

[ichkeria]

Idiot

[jno]

ichkeria, I think the setup in Australia is different from here, with companies expected to take responsibility - to some degree - for staff they send out of town. It's worth noting that a lower court thought she merited it, and even in this case the high court was split 4-2. So it wasn't an idiotic claim by any means.

[boxtops]

I still can't understand it from a liability viewpoint. I'd put this one down to "author of her own misfortune". What would you put in the accident book? "the light fitting was too flimsy to take my weight"?

[ToraToraTora]

have a day off jno, this is a common sense issue, sadly becomming less common. Ichteria is spot on.

[jno]

well, several Australian judges disagree with you, TTT. Maybe it suits you to think Australians are all idiots, but they have different laws there.

[ToraToraTora]

sadly, many judges, Aussie ones included have no common sense.

Are you seriously saying damage caused by bedroom high jinks can be anything other that the fault of the protagonists?

have a reality check!

[jim360]

Maybe the room wasn't properly stress-tested against such passionate throes as occurred that night...

[jno]

judges are paid to administer the law, not common sense. Australians pay a chunk of their income for social services and are entitled to expect them when needed. Same as here, but different services. Judges have decided by a narrow 4-3 margin that it doesn't apply in this case. Who knows, maybe they're better acquainted with Australian law than Brits on a website. It was clearly a close decision.

[jno]

I see the Aussies are calling this Rompo Compo