• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,561
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
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.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
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.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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...employee-dies-during-sex-on-business/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.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
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:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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! :hysterical:

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.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
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! :hysterical:

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.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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! :hysterical:

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.

That you actually believe the bullshit that companies and corporations are people, and entitled to the same moral consideration as real human individuals is terribly sad.

There is such a thing as an organization. It isn't a person; Nor is it a mere assemblage of several persons. It isn't entitled to freedom, or to anything else. And it is perfectly reasonable to impose upon it liabilities without control or influence, because no person is required to join it if they do not like the imposition.

And oddly, whenever this is pointed out to an American, they respond by talking about how their interlocutor thinks people should be imprisoned for, well, something. Despite the notion of imprisonment not having previously arisen in the discussion.

I think that companies can reasonably be held liable for circumstances that arise due to their actions, even where a person has equal or greater control over the circumstances than does the company in question. And if people don't like that rule, they are free not to expose themselves to liabilities incurred by the company. Nobody is required to form a company or corporation. Nobody is forced to buy shares. Nobody is compelled to accept a seat on a board. And those who do these things should do so with a clear understanding of the rules that will apply to them if they do. If they don't feel that those rules are fair, then they have the free choice not to play the game.

I don't lack principles. But it is VERY telling that you cannot consider the possibility that I might have principles that do not match your own. It's like debating a religious loon - they too cannot grasp that having different principles is not synonymous with having none at all.

But what would I know - I don't agree with you, so therefore I must be intellectually dishonest. Because it's impossible that someone might have thought things through and reached a different conclusion to that of a smug git who can't even imagine a society that is less authoritarian than his own.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.

I have to say it makes no sense to me in this particular case. The employer sending him on a business trip arguably had nothing, in terms of responsibility, to do with his decision to engage in what was risky behaviour on his own behalf outside working hours. What, for example, if the guy had died during a dodgy asphyxiation sex game?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.

I have to say it makes no sense to me in this particular case. The employer sending him on a business trip arguably had nothing, in terms of responsibility, to do with his decision to engage in what was risky behaviour on his own behalf outside working hours. What, for example, if the guy had died during a dodgy asphyxiation sex game?

French law says that, as his presence in that city was due to his employer requiring him to go there, they are liable. It doesn't make any distinction between different misadventures that could befall him, and his employer knew that. Essentially it's just a risk imposed on their business - they are effectively being required to insure their employees' lives while those employees are diverted from their normal lives by the requirements of their work.

I am not convinced that it's the best approach to take, but nor does it seem unreasonable or unjust - it's part of the law, and the employer should be aware that it is a risk they are liable for.

It's interesting to me that people seem to think that death during sex, or due to sex games, is somehow fundamentally different from other death by misadventure. It isn't, and I don't see why it should be. If he had decided to take a hot air balloon trip and fallen from the basket, the employer would also have been liable - and the case would have been no different in any substantive sense - but it probably wouldn't have made the news outside France. Sex sells newspapers.

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on. It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
...

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on. It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

I think your summary is why americans are so suspicious of government social welfare tendencies. Your very apt summary is so much different than the perfectly reasonable assumption american enterprise pays our government to enact and enforce.

First we put on legal lipstick by outlawing debtor prisons. Then laws are enacted that punish those who fall behind on their voluntary entered into debts multiplied by legally sanctioned outlandish interest rates are sanctioned with loss of their homes and jobs. Then laws that forbid street people are used to put people behind bars.

Not only are we noted for being tinkers we are famous for bait and switch liars.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
French law says that, as his presence in that city was due to his employer requiring him to go there, they are liable. It doesn't make any distinction between different misadventures that could befall him, and his employer knew that. Essentially it's just a risk imposed on their business - they are effectively being required to insure their employees' lives while those employees are diverted from their normal lives by the requirements of their work.

This is the morals & principles section of the philosophy forum, not the legal department. I do strongly disagree with you. I do not see a good argument for holding the employer responsible in this case. Essentially, someone is free to act irresponsibly, and someone else is responsible. That makes no sense to me in terms of morals and ethics.

Now, if French law was clear on this, then you might say that all parties were fully aware of their responsibilities beforehand, but I don't think it is clear. Also this year, a French professional basketball player died of a heart attack during official training session, and the employer was held by a court not to be responsible, and that incident took place in the workplace during normal working hours.

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on.

The alternative, that the company is not responsible in the OP case, would not seem to be arbitrary, rather it would seem to be in accord with wider notions of freedoms and consequent responsibilities that are usually applied by and to humans.

It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

I agree. Imo, the employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Only the French could call sex an industrial accident.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
This is the morals & principles section of the philosophy forum, not the legal department. I do strongly disagree with you. I do not see a good argument for holding the employer responsible in this case. Essentially, someone is free to act irresponsibly, and someone else is responsible. That makes no sense to me in terms of morals and ethics.

The French government through due consideration did find a moral rationale for their law. After all, law is considered the moral baseline for a society's moral behavior.

You continue with your shift of of morality from that of governments to personal which just isn't appropriate as a counter to a government declaration.

If it were everyone would be disregarding coded national moral policy on personal grounds.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
The employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.

Since the law covers travel, the courts are permitted to presume the company is aware of it's special obligations with respect to employees on travel and they should get the employee to sign waivers applicable to legal abnormal situations such as out of marriage entertainment.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don’t see the point of discussing legalities. It would seem (if this judgement is correct and upheld) that the legalities are clear and should have been understood beforehand. That said, the other case regarding the basketball player may suggest they are not clear. That the company disagreed with the OP claim also suggests they felt it was not clear cut.

But anyway, saying something is right and fair and reasonable and moral or ethical ‘because it is the law’ is not an interesting discussion to me.
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
I have to say it makes no sense to me in this particular case. The employer sending him on a business trip arguably had nothing, in terms of responsibility, to do with his decision to engage in what was risky behaviour on his own behalf outside working hours. What, for example, if the guy had died during a dodgy asphyxiation sex game?

French law says that, as his presence in that city was due to his employer requiring him to go there, they are liable. It doesn't make any distinction between different misadventures that could befall him, and his employer knew that. Essentially it's just a risk imposed on their business - they are effectively being required to insure their employees' lives while those employees are diverted from their normal lives by the requirements of their work.

I am not convinced that it's the best approach to take, but nor does it seem unreasonable or unjust - it's part of the law, and the employer should be aware that it is a risk they are liable for.

It's interesting to me that people seem to think that death during sex, or due to sex games, is somehow fundamentally different from other death by misadventure. It isn't, and I don't see why it should be. If he had decided to take a hot air balloon trip and fallen from the basket, the employer would also have been liable - and the case would have been no different in any substantive sense - but it probably wouldn't have made the news outside France. Sex sells newspapers.

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on. It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

It's interesting to me that people seem to think that death during sex, or due to sex games, is somehow fundamentally different from other death by misadventure

Opposition to this particular French law, and/or its application to these facts, isn’t based substantively on the kind of “misadventure.” The objection is essentially, the kind of misadventure doesn’t matter. If the misadventure isn’t part of his specific duties and responsibilities as an employee, then the company shouldn’t be liable if he suffered a coronary event while plugging some woman in the town in which he has a work related event 24 hours later.

I am not convinced that it's the best approach to take, but nor does it seem unreasonable or unjust - it's part of the law, and the employer should be aware that it is a risk they are liable for.... The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on.

So what if the legal principle at issue is arbitrary, as arbitrary any other. Arbitrary legal principles, in terms of substance, are not equal. It is the substance of this legal principle people are objecting to as unreasonable. They have a fair point.

The objections to this French law, well to be accurate your representations of the law, is the law lacks a reasonable limit on causation, specifically the law lacks a proper causation for purposes of drawing liability. Yes, the cause for the employee to be in the town was the company sent him to that town to perform and engage in job related activities (assuming he’s not a male porn actor). But the cause of his injury wasn’t related to being in town, but his choice to plug some woman while having a medical condition that put him at risk of having a cardiac event. The objection to the law is the imposition of liability to an entity that isn’t the cause of the injury, the result, or outcome.

And the substance of the law isn’t rendered reasonable on the basis all parties have acquiesced to the risk and liabilities imposed by the law. It’s possible the law is unreasonable and that all parties have acquiesced to an unreasonable law and its imposition of risks and liabilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Are you choosing the proper cause? Seems to me that the presence of the person in the town is the responsibility of the company. I'm pretty sure his location is critical in finding cause.

As you noted he could have had that attack anywhere. Is company or employee responsible ascertaining condition to properly determine risk to person on travel? Is that actually relevant? If employee and company by sending employee mutually assume he is not at risk of heart attack while on travel it seems to me that responsibility presumed by state is the correct presumption.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Are you choosing the proper cause? Seems to me that the presence of the person in the town is the responsibility of the company. I'm pretty sure his location is critical in finding cause.

As you noted he could have had that attack anywhere. Is company or employee responsible ascertaining condition to properly determine risk to person on travel? Is that actually relevant? If employee and company by sending employee mutually assume he is not at risk of heart attack while on travel it seems to me that responsibility presumed by state is the correct presumption.

Yeah, as with basically all worker-protection measures it can backfire. If a company thinks someone might keel over they're not going to want to send them on a business trip.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,283
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Are you choosing the proper cause? Seems to me that the presence of the person in the town is the responsibility of the company. I'm pretty sure his location is critical in finding cause.

As you noted he could have had that attack anywhere. Is company or employee responsible ascertaining condition to properly determine risk to person on travel? Is that actually relevant? If employee and company by sending employee mutually assume he is not at risk of heart attack while on travel it seems to me that responsibility presumed by state is the correct presumption.

Yeah, as with basically all worker-protection measures it can backfire. If a company thinks someone might keel over they're not going to want to send them on a business trip.

How's that a backfire? If a company thinks someone might keel over, they shouldn't be employing them on any kind of business. They should be sending them to a doctor, on paid medical leave. (And in France, such paid leave is likely to be a legal requirement for any employee who has been with the company for a few months).
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
Are you choosing the proper cause? Seems to me that the presence of the person in the town is the responsibility of the company. I'm pretty sure his location is critical in finding cause.

As you noted he could have had that attack anywhere. Is company or employee responsible ascertaining condition to properly determine risk to person on travel? Is that actually relevant? If employee and company by sending employee mutually assume he is not at risk of heart attack while on travel it seems to me that responsibility presumed by state is the correct presumption.

Mutual assumption of good health to travel isn’t supported by the reporting I have read or Bilby’s comments that I was addressing. If you have facts to the contrary, feel obliged to reference them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,561
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I agree. Imo, the employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.

On a business trip, no activity is "outside" of work.

An employer shouldn't be able to send an employee on a business trip on the terms that "you're only on the clock during business hours." If an employee is on a business trip, he should be considered to be working the entire time--even while sleeping--and should be paid for every minute of the trip. If this requires that the employee stay in his hotel room and avoid strenuous activity, then so be it, but let's not pretend that it's his own time.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
[....let's not pretend that it's his own time.

It may not strictly speaking be his own time, but that doesn't get you to saying that he didn't freely chose to do a certain thing during the non-working part of the trip, which the company in no way obliged him to.
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
I agree. Imo, the employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.

On a business trip, no activity is "outside" of work.

An employer shouldn't be able to send an employee on a business trip on the terms that "you're only on the clock during business hours." If an employee is on a business trip, he should be considered to be working the entire time--even while sleeping--and should be paid for every minute of the trip. If this requires that the employee stay in his hotel room and avoid strenuous activity, then so be it, but let's not pretend that it's his own time.

An employee sent out of town to negotiate the acquisition of a company is, at the direction of his superior(s), is physically present in the other town at the direction of his superior to perform work related activities. But this doesn’t transform every minute of his presence in the town as “working the entire time.”

There are hours of the day in which the employee is not “working the entire time” for their employer when they are not “out of town.” The same approach can be utilized for a business trip out of town. Being out of town doesn’t transform those activities that aren’t job related and are not “working” while “in town” to activities that constitute as “working.”

To use your example, someone sleeping “in town,” where sleeping isn’t necessarily part of the job (I’m thinking of medical professionals, who are known to work long hours at a hospital and will sleep at the hospital during their shift) and they aren’t considered to be “working the entire time” they are asleep, isn’t transformed into “working the entire time” they are asleep just because their job has temporarily resulted in different geographical location to lay their head.

Even if the person is “working the entire time” they are out of town, there’s still the question of whether that does or should render the employer liable for a heart attack suffered by the employee while on the clock. An employer shouldn’t necessarily be liable for a heart attack of an employee who was on the clock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom