That is the question the Federal Court will today begin to consider, as a public servant fights for compensation after being injured during a night of passion. The federal government employee, who cannot be identified, was injured when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex with a man on November 26, 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The light struck her in the face, leaving her with injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth, as well as “a consequent psychiatric injury”, described as an adjustment disorder.

She claims entitlement to compensation because her injuries were caused “during the course of her employment”, as she had been sent to a country town to stay the night ahead of a meeting early the next day.

Her lawyers argue she should be entitled to compensation because, as prescribed under the Act, she was “at a particular place” at which her employer “induced or encouraged” her to spend the night.

But the government’s workplace safety body ComCare rejected her compensation claim, upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, finding the sexual activity “was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating”.

Her lawyers argue that the injury was sustained “in an ordinary incident of life, commonly undertaken in a motel room at night – namely, lawful sexual activity”.

They say in submissions filed to the court that being injured while having sex “during an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work” was no different to being hurt doing other recreational activities.

“Serious drinking and socialising may be regarded as a recreational activity, yet injuries resulting from those activities … have been found to be compensable,” her lawyers argue.

But ComCare, who say the woman was having sex with “an acquaintance, who had no connection with her work”, will argue “neither legal authority nor common sense” could lead to a finding that the injury was sustained during the course of her employment.

ComCare submits the applicant’s sexual activity was “not obviously involved” in her employer’s requirement for an overnight stay, was not of any benefit to the employer, was “a frolic of her own”, and “took her outside the course of her employment by … engaging in an activity unrelated to her employment and not positively supported by her employer”.

The case is set down for a hearing today before Justice John Nicholas.

Source: perthnow.com.au