膝盖在车站摔伤，能找他们出费用吗？

喜欢苹果

Tianqing 发表于 2014-5-29 21:58
不可能没有，要不违法。可能公司不想出垫底费吧

有可能，开始说有，然后告诉我条约改了，没有了。
不要给我机会，有机会肯定跳槽，以小见大。

alook

估计比较难，否则天天有一大堆人去车站跌倒/或者去大超市滑倒跌倒，那么车站/商场天天要负责赔款了

重机枪手

喜欢苹果 发表于 2014-5-29 21:14
问了，公司说没有。。公司小，哭。

没买的话不违法吗 具体我就不知道了。。

kieren

好像现在workcover不包上下班路上了。

掩人耳目

听起来有点牵强

喜欢苹果

kieren 发表于 2014-5-29 23:44
好像现在workcover不包上下班路上了。

原来公司没有骗我。。。谢谢。

魔头

LZ， 就等你最后消息了， 成功了， 我也去摔车站

喜欢苹果

魔头 发表于 2014-5-30 00:02
LZ， 就等你最后消息了， 成功了， 我也去摔车站

先看看澳洲公立医疗给不给力了。
明白您的意思，摔车站不是运动神经好的人干的，还是算了。

flat26a

喜欢苹果 发表于 2014-5-30 00:57
原来公司没有骗我。。。谢谢。

我帮你去查了下，关于Workcover和上下班路上

Am I covered travelling to and from work?
In most cases, WorkCover does not apply when travelling to and from home and work. There can however be some arguments about when you actually reach work. For example if you fall in a car park, WorkCover may cover you if work controls that car park even though you have not arrived at your workstation. If, however the car park is for general public use, you will be considered as still traveling to work.

There are some circumstances where you can still be covered for an injury that happens when traveling between work and home, if work has contributed to that injury. If a maintenance worker fell asleep, for example, on the way home and ran off the road because he or she had been without sleep for 24 hours due a work emergency, they would be covered.

If you are not covered by WorkCover and your injury involves a motor vehicle or public transport accident you may be entitled to Transport Accident Compensation (TAC) benefits or able to pursue a claim for damages.

英拉

以前workcover是负责上下班路上的，现在改成不负责了？那太TMD。。。

gugo

英拉 发表于 2014-5-30 09:17
以前workcover是负责上下班路上的，现在改成不负责了？那太TMD。。。

可能后来发现很多人都不去上班了，呆在家里吧。

喜欢苹果

flat26a 发表于 2014-5-30 09:00
我帮你去查了下，关于Workcover和上下班路上

Am I covered travelling to and from work?

专家在身边。

flat26a

喜欢苹果 发表于 2014-5-30 10:49
专家在身边。

今天刚看到你的帖子

不是专家，只是喜欢Google

duolaaimeng

首先回答楼上的一个关于工伤的问题，2012年6月之前，上下班途中的受伤情况是属于工伤范围的，但是12年6月工伤法律改了以后就没有了（NSW），所以这个不可以claim workers compensation.

关于找车站要赔偿，这个属于Public liability范畴，civil liability act 2002 (NSW)对这种情况有规定：

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 5F

Meaning of “obvious risk”
5F Meaning of “obvious risk”

(1) For the purposes of this Division, an
"obvious risk" to a person who suffers harm is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person.

在这里楼主自己说到：上周五下雨路滑，不小心在车站把膝盖摔伤，不能走路了。

5G Injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks

(1) In proceedings relating to liability for negligence, a person who suffers harm is presumed to have been aware of the risk of harm if it was an obvious risk, unless the person proves on the balance of probabilities that he or she was not aware of the risk.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is aware of a risk if the person is aware of the type or kind of risk, even if the person is not aware of the precise nature, extent or manner of occurrence of the risk.

下雨路滑在我看来是属于obvious risk的，所以如果楼主要问车站claim的话，可能要小心他们也会抓住这点做文章。

但是,

5H No proactive duty to warn of obvious risk

(1) A person ( "the defendant" ) does not owe a duty of care to another person ( "the plaintiff" ) to warn of an obvious risk to the plaintiff.
(2) This section does not apply if:
(a) the plaintiff has requested advice or information about the risk from the defendant, or
(b) the defendant is required by a written law to warn the plaintiff of the risk, or
(c) the defendant is a professional and the risk is a risk of the death of or personal injury to the plaintiff from the provision of a professional service by the defendant.
(3) Subsection (2) does not give rise to a presumption of a duty to warn of a risk in the circumstances referred to in that subsection.

这里,楼主可以找一下是不是有written law 规定车站有义务要warn a risk,如果有的话，或许可以有成功的希望。

不过，我原雇主那边做过一个类似的案子，最后律师劝原告drop case了，估计是实在不值得花精力花金钱去打这个官司吧，而且如果楼主伤的不是那么重的话，我个人觉得意义也不大。

以上只是自己的一家之言，不是提供任何legal advice,不承担任何责任哦

ItsThere

duolaaimeng 发表于 2014-5-30 11:13
首先回答楼上的一个关于工伤的问题，2012年6月之前，上下班途中的受伤情况是属于工伤范围的，但是12年6月工 ...

你是大师，感谢分享！