Of course, the article attracted me purely out of prurient interest. As such, an extended quote is on the way:
An Australian court has ruled that a bureaucrat who was injured while having sex on a business trip is eligible for worker's compensation benefits.Well, prurient/shmurient, but the questions I have are actually technical:
The Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled Dec. 13 in favor of the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, and rejecting the appeal of the federal government's insurer.
The woman was hospitalized after being injured in 2007 during sex with a male friend while staying in a motel in the town of Nowra, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of her hometown of Sydney.
During the sex, a glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face, injuring her nose and mouth. She later suffered depression and was unable to continue working for the government.
- Did the above mentioned light fitting fall because of the earth shaking activities of the pair?
- Or was the light fitting used for hanging upon during the said activities?
- And why, if 1) is true, wasn't the male friend's head injured instead of the lady's face?