Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: French company liable after employee dies during extra-marital sex with stranger on business trip

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,849
    Rep Power
    15

    French company liable after employee dies during extra-marital sex with stranger on business trip

    I'm not sure what to make of this interesting news item, but on the face of it, it doesn't seem fair to hold the employer responsible.

    "A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip.

    A Paris court ruled that his death was an industrial accident and that the family was entitled to compensation.

    The firm had argued the man was not carrying out professional duties when he joined a guest in her hotel room.

    But under French law an employer is responsible for any accident occurring during a business trip, judges said.

    The man, named as Xavier X, was working as an engineer for TSO, a railway services company based near Paris.

    He died at a hotel during a trip to central France in 2013, as a result of what the employer called "an extramarital relationship with a perfect stranger" "


    French company liable after employee dies during sex on business trip
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49662134

  2. Top | #2
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,776
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,526
    Rep Power
    37
    An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection "over the whole time of his mission" and regardless of the circumstances, [the Paris appeals court] said.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-...iness/11504708

    The ruling rests upon a decision 10 years ago when French courts ruled that any deaths, injuries or accidents suffered by employees on work trips were an "accident du travail".
    Seems a tad broad.

  3. Top | #3
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,199
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,412
    Rep Power
    54
    Seems to be a bit like the Marin county judge who ruled lad was a good boy so no time for rape. How can a heart attack be construed as an accident when it is due to the family member misbehaving wilfully when he knew he had heart problems. I believe it is still employee responsibility to communicate any medical condition that may interfere with work. Judges just wanted to put it to the company concerned because the guy was a good boy. Bad precedent. It'll be overturned by higher court.

    Really pisses me off to see this when during an economic downturn seven of my associates within department died of heart attacks prior to retirement resulting in reduction of benefits for families. Now that should be something compensated.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,876
    Rep Power
    25
    Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

  5. Top | #5
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,629
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,106
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection "over the whole time of his mission" and regardless of the circumstances, [the Paris appeals court] said.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-...iness/11504708

    The ruling rests upon a decision 10 years ago when French courts ruled that any deaths, injuries or accidents suffered by employees on work trips were an "accident du travail".
    Seems a tad broad.
    Perhaps, but not insanely so.

    The employee wouldn't have been where he was, if not for the demands of his job.

    The prurient detail that he was having an affair and died during sex is irrelevant; If he had been killed by stepping out in front of a bus, French law is clear - he would have been somewhere else if not on a business trip, so the death is work related.

    Australian employment law has a similar provision for 'journey claims' - if you are injured on the way to or from work, you can claim against workcover for the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation. Such claims are more limited in scope than under French law, but in both cases, it's necessary for a tribunal or court to rule whether unusual or unclear circumstances qualify.

    And in both cases it's just bureaucratic red tape - deciding which governmental or quasi-governmental department will be financially liable.

  6. Top | #6
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,629
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,106
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.
    This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

    Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,776
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,528
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Seems to be a bit like the Marin county judge who ruled lad was a good boy so no time for rape. How can a heart attack be construed as an accident when it is due to the family member misbehaving wilfully when he knew he had heart problems. I believe it is still employee responsibility to communicate any medical condition that may interfere with work. Judges just wanted to put it to the company concerned because the guy was a good boy. Bad precedent. It'll be overturned by higher court.

    Really pisses me off to see this when during an economic downturn seven of my associates within department died of heart attacks prior to retirement resulting in reduction of benefits for families. Now that should be something compensated.
    Sounds like the law counts natural-causes deaths while at work.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,876
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.
    This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

    IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.


    Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.
    I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.
    Last edited by ronburgundy; 09-16-2019 at 07:29 PM.

  9. Top | #9
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,629
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,106
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post


    IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.


    Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.
    I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.
    Americans are so cute when they talk about freedom as though they actually understand it.

    You can't be free unless you are bound by my set of legal principles!

    The false dichotomy that requires control to be either absolute or non-existent is a problem for your attempt at reasoning; But it isn't a feature of reality, so reality isn't bound by it. Not everyone shares your fundamental principles - and their right to disregard them is a necessary condition of freedom.

    Americans really love authoritarian rules. And talking about how free they are. It's a total mystery.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,876
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post


    IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.


    Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.
    I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.
    Americans are so cute when they talk about freedom as though they actually understand it.

    You can't be free unless you are bound by my set of legal principles!

    The false dichotomy that requires control to be either absolute or non-existent is a problem for your attempt at reasoning; But it isn't a feature of reality, so reality isn't bound by it. Not everyone shares your fundamental principles - and their right to disregard them is a necessary condition of freedom.

    Americans really love authoritarian rules. And talking about how free they are. It's a total mystery.
    Your inability to grasp basic logic combined with intellectual dishonesty is what allows you to deny the objective fact that liability logically presumes the ability to control, and that freedom of any person is logically dependent on the degree to which any other person is responsible for that person's actions.

    Your position is directly anti-thetical to freedom. You think that people should be imprisoned if other people who they are not allowed to influence do something of their own will that has negative consequences. The fact that you only apply this fascism to people who qualify as an "employer" just speaks to the total lack of principles you have and your notion of "freedom" is doing whatever you want to harm people you view as economic adversaries.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •