First the French Law
A French railway services company is being held liable for the death of one of its engineers, who died while having sex on a business trip. The man, known only as Xavier X, went into cardiac arrest while having sex in a hotel in central France in 2013, the BBC reported.
The state health insurance provider reportedly labelled the incident a workplace accident, and in 2016 a court agreed, ruling that sex was considered “an act of normal life, like taking a shower or eating a meal”. Mr X’s employer, TSO, challenged the decision and said his death was the result of “an extramarital relationship with a perfect stranger”. TSO also argued Mr X was not in the hotel room it had organised for him.
But the court disagreed and ruled the man’s family should receive compensation.
Now the Australian Law
A public servant who was injured while having sex in a motel room during a work trip is not eligible for compensation, the High Court has ruled. The Federal Government employee, who cannot be named, was injured in 2007 when a light fitting was dislodged and fell on her as she was having sex with a man.
The incident took place in a motel room in a country town in New South Wales, where the woman, aged in her 30s, and another employee had travelled for work. The woman said the light hit her in the face, injuring her nose, mouth and a tooth and also causing a psychiatric adjustment disorder and was taken to hospital for treatment.
ComCare successfully argued the injury was not in the course of her employment. The judge agreed by saying the woman had to prove her injury had been caused by an activity that had been “implied” or “encouraged” by her employer.
Federal Employment Minister hailed the High Court ruling in the “infamous sex case” as a victory for common sense. “This decision protects the currency of work place safety which was in serious danger of being trivialised by this claim.” “This decision also means that the definition of ‘work-related injury’ is more clearly defined. “It’s important in Australian workplaces that we have a form of ‘mutual obligation’ where employees and employers both work together and are prepared to accept personal responsibility.”
“Instances such as this where an employee seeks to stretch the boundaries of entitlements are of great concern and the High Court’s intervention is welcome.” In a statement, the man involved in the act said: “I do not know if we bumped the light or it just fell off.” “I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we were rolling around,” he said.
Source ABC Online
