+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 203
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    14,956
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    634
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    She was on a work trip, there for covered under work cover for every second she is away for work.

    Would have been covered of she was sleeping & it fell.

    Work cover will go after the motel for compensation.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to TripleTime For This Useful Post:

    share a book  (20-04-2012)

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    14,956
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    634
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kw123 View Post
    I can't speak for others but my view has nothing to do with a moral judgement. I just happen to agree with the first judge who ruled against her:

    "it is insufficient for the employee simply to be at a particular location during an interval or interlude in an overall period or episode of work for liability for injury to arise. The activities engaged in during that interval which led to the employee's injury must be expressly or impliedly induced or encouraged by the employer. Although the connection need not be a close one, a Nexus is essential before liability will be incurred".

    The Appeal Judge disagreed and ruled the other way. Such is life I suppose. Ultimately these things come down to one person's interpretation and opinion.

    Do all of you think the first judge was morally judging her or do you think he was just interpreting the law as he saw fit?
    The law is how it interpreted. It's up to the residing judge as to how it's interpreted.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,714
    Thanks
    9,561
    Thanked
    12,691
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    I get that legally she's allowed to claim. I don't think it's morally right though. You shouldn't be able to claim unless you're actually 'at work' , 'doing work.'.

    Claims made while travelling to work or in a work provided hotel are a crock. Blame can be attributed to a party other than the employer. In a car accident either yourself or another driver (usually) are to blame. In the sexscape case either the motel is to blame (dodgy fittings) or the couple having a boof are (by grabbing at the fitting etc). We should be suing whoever is negligent not going after the employer/workcover. I get that workcover may go after the motel but that's just ridiculous... Why have a middle man, go after the motel from day 1.

    Seems to me that the plaintiff is after a money grab. If she wants to play that game then the employers should be allowed to tightly control what we do on work trips, in order to minimise the likelihood of something going wrong and them being sued. No more drinky poo's or sex on work trips, that's where we're headed due to this money grabber.
    Last edited by VicPark; 20-04-2012 at 16:24.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    Pesca77  (20-04-2012)

  6. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,714
    Thanks
    9,561
    Thanked
    12,691
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beetle View Post
    What's so sad is that a moral judgement on this woman's character has been made due to the fact that she was having sex. Which leads me to the why I need feminism thread.
    I'm not judging her because she had sex. I'm judging her because she's Stooping to low levels in order to sue someone who's not at fault. Regardless of whether it's legal it's wrong and she should be embarassed.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    jessesgirl  (20-04-2012),Pesca77  (20-04-2012)

  8. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Point Cook
    Posts
    985
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    468
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Work cover isn't suing someone is it? Or is my understanding of the system wrong?

    I would think that if she wanted to sue someone she would have sued the motel. It would have ended without her sex life being broadcast to the whole country if she had.
    Sent from my GT540 using BubHub
    Last edited by mrsdj1234; 20-04-2012 at 16:41.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mrsdj1234 For This Useful Post:

    jacobsmamma  (23-04-2012),VicPark  (20-04-2012)

  10. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,611
    Thanks
    404
    Thanked
    1,918
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I just had a skim read of the appeal case, and it makes sense why she succeeded.

    The argument (from my very quick read) against her seemed to be that whatever she did in the motel was covered, but the sex was a recreational activity and therefore not covered. But if she had slipped over in the shower or the light fell on her while brushing her teeth, that would have been covered.

    It seems artificial to excise having sex in a motel room from the other ordinary stuff you do in a motel room. It's not like she was bungee jumping.

  11. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,995
    Thanks
    1,382
    Thanked
    2,879
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    I'm not judging her because she had sex. I'm judging her because she's Stooping to low levels in order to sue someone who's not at fault. Regardless of whether it's legal it's wrong and she should be embarassed.
    What do you mean? Why is making a work cover claim 'stooping to low levels'? She's covered and she claimed just like she would have if it had happened any other way. I can't fathom why she should be embarrassed. She didn't hurt herself. A light fell on her at a hotel that she was at for work related purposes. I would expect to be covered too.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Alexander Beetle For This Useful Post:

    jacobsmamma  (23-04-2012)

  13. #68
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7,878
    Thanks
    3,397
    Thanked
    5,160
    Reviews
    8
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    She's entitled. Who cares if she was having sex or watching telly, it's irrelevant.

  14. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,714
    Thanks
    9,561
    Thanked
    12,691
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beetle View Post
    What do you mean? Why is making a work cover claim 'stooping to low levels'? She's covered and she claimed just like she would have if it had happened any other way. I can't fathom why she should be embarrassed. She didn't hurt herself. A light fell on her at a hotel that she was at for work related purposes. I would expect to be covered too.
    Suing someone who is not directly negligent and responsible is absurd and designed to get the most $$ in the easiest way for the plaintiff. The lady should be ashamed..... we're now a 'me me me' society.
    Last edited by VicPark; 20-04-2012 at 16:57.

  15. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    yeh, I didn't think 'compo' was 'suing' someone either?

    I likened it more to a type of insurance - employers pay into?

    The payment is to compensate for lost income or to cover medical costs that are incurred if someone sustains an injury whilst on their employers clock?

    ..correct me if I've got it wrong please
    Last edited by FiveInTheBed; 20-04-2012 at 16:59.


 

Similar Threads

  1. is workers compo worth it?
    By suemp in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 12:10
  2. has your child caused u or DH an injury?
    By RmumR in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14-02-2012, 08:25
  3. Work Injury
    By MissPoss in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22-01-2012, 19:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Pyjamas.com.au
With so many gorgeous brands and styles for every season, our pyjamas, nighties, robes, sleepsuits and sleeping bags are lovely for lights out and perfect for lazy days. Get 10% off first order using code bubhub. Be quick offer ends 31/12/16.
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
Heinz Baby Basics
Our BPA Free range offers you a choice for every stage of your baby’s feeding development. You’ll love our brilliant colours, inspired designs and innovative features. Heinz Baby Basics caters for your baby’s needs!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!