The argument is: \u201csex is a normal activity in a motel room and should be covered, because the woman was on a work trip\u201d. No-one seems to be perturbed by the fact that taxpayers are not only paying for the woman to have a place to copulate but are also paying for the consequences of her going at it too vigorously.<\/p>\n
None of this would have happened if she had been wearing a hard-hat.<\/p>\n
From the CBC<\/a>:<\/p>\n The court said the woman, whose name hasn’t been released, is entitled to compensation for facial and psychological injuries suffered when a light fixture fell off the wall in her motel room in November 2007, and landed on the bed she was occupying at the time with a male friend.<\/p>\n She suffered injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth from the glass light hitting her face, the BBC reported. Her lawyer argued that sex is a normal activity in a motel room and should be covered, because the woman was on a work trip.<\/p>\n “If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room, she would have been entitled to compensation,” Nicholas said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The argument is: \u201csex is a normal activity in a motel room and should be covered, because the woman was on a work trip\u201d. No-one seems to be perturbed by the fact that taxpayers are not only paying for the … Continue reading