$ex injury compo claim

[MsMummy]

Suing someone who is not directly negligent and responsible is a low money grubbing act. The lady should be ashamed, we're now a 'me me me' society.

But that's the nature of work cover. It's to compensate for injuries arising out of employment, regardless of fault (unless the employee was doing something reckless etc).

But there does seem to be a general dislike of plaintiff personal injury claims in Australia. Until people have suffered an injury and realise how it can impact on their lives, and then they are thankful that they can recover against somebody.

[Alexander Beetle]

Suing someone who is not directly negligent and responsible is a low money grubbing act. The lady should be ashamed, we're now a 'me me me' society.

I still don't understand. All businesses know they have to pay work cover claims. It's very common. My friend just received money from a serious accident that was his fault because he didn't secure the ladder properly. But it happened at work and he hasn't been able to work since. That's what work cover is for. To cover you if you can't work due to a work related injury. It's not suing or money grabbing.

[WorkingClassMum]

She isn't suing the motel, she's suing/making a claim under insurance via work over - that's what insurance is for.

[Benji]

Lets just imagine I walked into the toilets at work. I shut the door a bit too hard, causing the light to come off the ceiling and smash in my face.

I would be compensated, and rightly so.

This scenario is no different.

She was on a work related trip.

This is why people are paid 'living away from home allowance' and 'travel allowance' - because they are on work time and are not at home enjoying their home and their family.

I am soooooooooo glad she didn't allow her name to be released, this poor woman would be lynched

[share a book]

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

You are correct.

[share a book]

She is not suing her boss! Maye someone can start a thread about compensation. Do people who are against this claim feel it's wrong to make an insurance claim if they are at fault?

[Ana Gram]

Love to read that my claim for work cover was apparently a crock. It wasn't even my idea, it was suggested to me by my work.

[Artful]

The only reason this is at all 'newsworthy' is because she was having sex at the time. Geez I really hate the media sometimes.

She was on a work trip, she suffered an injury because of a faulty light fitting in the motel room (query - those who read the judgment, was her amount reduced because of contributory negligence?) and she received from fairly bad injuries to which she is entitled to workers compensation.

It's all a bit boring, the only reason it's an issue is because she was having sex at the time. If she is covered for recreational activites as part of her compensation, then I would say that sex is most definitely defined as a recreational activity

[Artful]

She is not suing her boss! Maye someone can start a thread about compensation. Do people who are against this claim feel it's wrong to make an insurance claim if they are at fault?

Fault is taken into account either by not succeeding in the claim or having the amount reduced due to contributory negligence.

[Artful]

I am soooooooooo glad she didn't allow her name to be released, this poor woman would be lynched

Totally