HR: defining "a frolic of her own."

An un-named Australian woman (why her name is secret in a civil case is a bit of a mystery) is trying to claim worker's compensation because a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex.

It does not take much imagination to work out why, in a small motel of the sort that Peter Benchley in Jaws described as having "walls made of Kleenex and spit," a light fell off the wall behind the bed and landed on her upturned face.

She claims that she was staying in the motel because her employer had sent her out of town, an overnight stay was necessary and her company booked and paid for the motel. As a result, she claims, she is entitled to compensation under Australia's ComCare scheme.

ComCare say that her employer did not send her to the motel to have sex and that her activities were not part of her normal duties. Had she slipped in the shower, choked on food or (somehow) been injured while sleeping, that would be different it says. Her case is that "during an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work" is no different to any other activity carried out while on assignment.

ComCare has not said as much but it is clearly having an eye to the potentially disastrous claims for STDs or unwanted pregnancies that might result if this claim were to be allowed. The man concerned is described as "an acquaintance" who is in no way work related (by which ComCare is carelessly opening the door to claims where someone has sex with a colleague or customer).

The question arises as to whether the injury took place "in the course of her employment."

But there is another question: should the motel not be the primary target? The answer lies in the generosity of the ComCare scheme. Simply, if she wins, the taxpayer's liability will be greater than that of an insurance company in a similar claim.

Her claim has been rejected by ComCare and the Tribunal and is now being heard in Federal Court.