Members, we're back again to share some truly bizarre happenings.

We understand that strange incidents do happen when people share a space, management and employee relationships can be complex, and sometimes the law takes a route we never expected.

For today's story, we're diving into the world of the unexpected and downright strange.

Get ready to raise your eyebrows as we tell you about a case of a resort employee who urinated on his workmate and—astounding as it may sound—how the resort folded its arms and went scot-free of liability.

A man took his work company to court after a distressing incident involving his colleague. Credit: Shutterstock.

Imagine this: You've had a long day at work at the picturesque haven known as Daydream Island (a beautiful place, though this incident was far from dreamy), and after a nice night out with colleagues at the staff bar, you retire for the night, laying your weary head down in the shared employee accommodation.

Sounds typical, doesn't it?

But for Aaron Schokman, the night took a peculiar and highly unpleasant turn when his mate Sean Hewett, fuelled by one too many drinks, showed up at their shared room around 3 am.

Barely 30 minutes into his slumber, poor Schokman woke, gasping for breath.

In a scene that no one would wish to experience, Schokman discovered that Hewett was standing over his bed, pants down, urinating on him.

Yes, you read that right—urinating! Schokman was literally choking on the incident, according to vividly descriptive, if uncomfortable, imagery from the High Court judgment.

Despite Schokman's protests, a semi-conscious Hewett continued his outrageous act for a short while. He later realised what he did and remorsefully apologised to Schokman, but we all know apologies can't take back such a distasteful act.

On the face of it, this could be seen as a drunken debacle between workmates. But for Aaron, it led to severe consequences. The shocking incident triggered a cataplectic attack—a sudden, brief muscle weakness triggered by distress.

Feeling aggrieved, Schokman decided to take legal action and took the resort owners, CCIG Investments Pty Ltd, to court.

Queensland's Supreme Court initially found the resort owners 'vicariously liable' and ordered a hefty $431,738 payout to Schokman.

However, this decision was upended by the state Court of Appeals, which decidedly pointed its gavel in the other direction on review. They held that the somewhat whimsically (or maybe, tragically) named Daydream Island Resort wasn't liable for the actions of Hewett.

In the eyes of the law, while Hewett was abiding by his employee contract, which required him to live at the resort's staff accommodation, his 'tortious act' had no connection or relation to his work responsibilities.

In simple terms, the court ruled that Hewett's outrageous, drunken act was not the resort's responsibility.

'Nothing in the present case pointed to the drunken act of Hewett being authorised, being in any way required by, or being incidental to, his employment,' the judgment summary succinctly stated.

'In truth, it had no real connection to it.'

This shocking story is a stark reminder of the bizarre incidents that can occur and how the law can sometimes take an unexpected pathway.

For those feeling incredulous, keep in mind that justice often takes many forms, and the legal system—complex as it may be—is there to ensure fairness reigns in its unique, often convoluted, way.

Key Takeaways

• A man took resort owners CCIG Investments Pty Ltd to court after his work colleague urinated on him, causing a cataplectic attack.
• Queensland's Supreme Court had previously found the resort owners were 'vicariously liable' as an employer and ordered a $431,738 payout.
• The state Court of Appeals overturned the previous ruling, stating that CCIG Investments Pty Ltd were not liable for the employee's actionsee.
• The court found that the 'wrongful act' was not conducted in the context of employment and had insufficient connection to the workplace or employment obligations.

Stay tuned for more tales of the unexpected, and remember, whether it's a resort or any form of shared living quarters, proper decorum should always be observed—and yes, especially when alcohol is flowing freely!

Let's hope such incidents serve as reminders of the importance of respect for personal space. After all, we are all adults.

We've all had a nightmare neighbour, but this story is as outrageous and unbelievable as it gets. What are your thoughts, folks? Share them with us in the comments section below!

 

[Suzanne rose]

Things happen but it was the resort who they worked for that put them together in the accommodation so I'm thinking they are liable.
Maybe they need to give single accommodation or ban alcohol

 

[Thecheesequeen]

But $40,000 + ? Yes, a disgusting act, but think the victim is maybe milking it.

 

[Countryjohn]

As a previous employer there are far too many occasions that the employer is not connected to the event. In this situation, as bad as it was, there is a lot of information missing to allow us to make a reasonable fact based decision.
Was it shared or single accommodation? If single was there a lock on the door? If yes why wasn’t it locked? If no why want there one fitted ? If shared was there an encore toilet provided? Should previous history be included of the 2 employees? Such as has there been animosity between the 2?
So I don’t think there is sufficient info given so we can make a decision based on fact which is what it should be.
It seemed to me that the payout was a little over the top. I’m reminded where a male went to a concert during which time he climbed into the stage and danced with the singer. He then lay on the floor and she proceeded to remove some lower clothing and urinated on his face. No legal action survived the first attempt he made to sue the singer. The court said that he basically asked for it!
It’s different but it seems that it’s ok so perhaps this drunk workmate has seen the concert and thought it was ok.
Will e ever know the truth of daydream island. Perhaps it’s more suited to be called pee-wee island.

 

[Shane/#]

Members, we're back again to share some truly bizarre happenings.

We understand that strange incidents do happen when people share a space, management and employee relationships can be complex, and sometimes the law takes a route we never expected.

For today's story, we're diving into the world of the unexpected and downright strange.

Get ready to raise your eyebrows as we tell you about a case of a resort employee who urinated on his workmate and—astounding as it may sound—how the resort folded its arms and went scot-free of liability.

View attachment 26721

A man took his work company to court after a distressing incident involving his colleague. Credit: Shutterstock.

Imagine this: You've had a long day at work at the picturesque haven known as Daydream Island (a beautiful place, though this incident was far from dreamy), and after a nice night out with colleagues at the staff bar, you retire for the night, laying your weary head down in the shared employee accommodation.

Sounds typical, doesn't it?

But for Aaron Schokman, the night took a peculiar and highly unpleasant turn when his mate Sean Hewett, fuelled by one too many drinks, showed up at their shared room around 3 am.

Barely 30 minutes into his slumber, poor Schokman woke, gasping for breath.

In a scene that no one would wish to experience, Schokman discovered that Hewett was standing over his bed, pants down, urinating on him.

Yes, you read that right—urinating! Schokman was literally choking on the incident, according to vividly descriptive, if uncomfortable, imagery from the High Court judgment.

Despite Schokman's protests, a semi-conscious Hewett continued his outrageous act for a short while. He later realised what he did and remorsefully apologised to Schokman, but we all know apologies can't take back such a distasteful act.

On the face of it, this could be seen as a drunken debacle between workmates. But for Aaron, it led to severe consequences. The shocking incident triggered a cataplectic attack—a sudden, brief muscle weakness triggered by distress.

Feeling aggrieved, Schokman decided to take legal action and took the resort owners, CCIG Investments Pty Ltd, to court.

Queensland's Supreme Court initially found the resort owners 'vicariously liable' and ordered a hefty $431,738 payout to Schokman.

However, this decision was upended by the state Court of Appeals, which decidedly pointed its gavel in the other direction on review. They held that the somewhat whimsically (or maybe, tragically) named Daydream Island Resort wasn't liable for the actions of Hewett.

In the eyes of the law, while Hewett was abiding by his employee contract, which required him to live at the resort's staff accommodation, his 'tortious act' had no connection or relation to his work responsibilities.

In simple terms, the court ruled that Hewett's outrageous, drunken act was not the resort's responsibility.

'Nothing in the present case pointed to the drunken act of Hewett being authorised, being in any way required by, or being incidental to, his employment,' the judgment summary succinctly stated.

'In truth, it had no real connection to it.'

This shocking story is a stark reminder of the bizarre incidents that can occur and how the law can sometimes take an unexpected pathway.

For those feeling incredulous, keep in mind that justice often takes many forms, and the legal system—complex as it may be—is there to ensure fairness reigns in its unique, often convoluted, way.

Key Takeaways

• A man took resort owners CCIG Investments Pty Ltd to court after his work colleague urinated on him, causing a cataplectic attack.
• Queensland's Supreme Court had previously found the resort owners were 'vicariously liable' as an employer and ordered a $431,738 payout.
• The state Court of Appeals overturned the previous ruling, stating that CCIG Investments Pty Ltd were not liable for the employee's actionsee.
• The court found that the 'wrongful act' was not conducted in the context of employment and had insufficient connection to the workplace or employment obligations.

Stay tuned for more tales of the unexpected, and remember, whether it's a resort or any form of shared living quarters, proper decorum should always be observed—and yes, especially when alcohol is flowing freely!

Let's hope such incidents serve as reminders of the importance of respect for personal space. After all, we are all adults.

We've all had a nightmare neighbour, but this story is as outrageous and unbelievable as it gets. What are your thoughts, folks? Share them with us in the comments section below!

It said they were drinking at the employees bar hmmmm interesting what about responsible serving of alcohol laws

 

[MariaG]

If I was an employer at a place like that, I would make it a rule not to serve alcohol to employees at their place of employ. If nothing else, surely this would be an Occ Health thing.
I would further suggest that the employers were making money out of the drinking habits of employees and turned a blind eye to a lot of stupid stuff.
Being a non-drinker, I find it interesting to sit back and watch how people change their behaviour the more they drink. It's a real eye opener to see the slobbering, loudness, obnoxious behaviour to others, and so it goes on.
I agree with Shane. For someone to be so off their face drunk that they assume the room mate is a toilet, suggests too many servings of turps and responsible service of alcohol was ignored. Not good form.

 

[Mindygirl12022]

Revolting things happen when drinking too much, people loose their judgement all the time, as in motor vehicle crashes, often with tragic results. This was an act done under the influence, by one person to another, and should be seen this way. An employer is not responsible for their employees actions after they finish for the day.

 

[Suzanne rose]

It said they were drinking at the employees bar hmmmm interesting what about responsible serving of alcohol laws

Exactly

 

[Luckyus]

Members, we're back again to share some truly bizarre happenings.

We understand that strange incidents do happen when people share a space, management and employee relationships can be complex, and sometimes the law takes a route we never expected.

For today's story, we're diving into the world of the unexpected and downright strange.

Get ready to raise your eyebrows as we tell you about a case of a resort employee who urinated on his workmate and—astounding as it may sound—how the resort folded its arms and went scot-free of liability.

View attachment 26721

A man took his work company to court after a distressing incident involving his colleague. Credit: Shutterstock.

Imagine this: You've had a long day at work at the picturesque haven known as Daydream Island (a beautiful place, though this incident was far from dreamy), and after a nice night out with colleagues at the staff bar, you retire for the night, laying your weary head down in the shared employee accommodation.

Sounds typical, doesn't it?

But for Aaron Schokman, the night took a peculiar and highly unpleasant turn when his mate Sean Hewett, fuelled by one too many drinks, showed up at their shared room around 3 am.

Barely 30 minutes into his slumber, poor Schokman woke, gasping for breath.

In a scene that no one would wish to experience, Schokman discovered that Hewett was standing over his bed, pants down, urinating on him.

Yes, you read that right—urinating! Schokman was literally choking on the incident, according to vividly descriptive, if uncomfortable, imagery from the High Court judgment.

Despite Schokman's protests, a semi-conscious Hewett continued his outrageous act for a short while. He later realised what he did and remorsefully apologised to Schokman, but we all know apologies can't take back such a distasteful act.

On the face of it, this could be seen as a drunken debacle between workmates. But for Aaron, it led to severe consequences. The shocking incident triggered a cataplectic attack—a sudden, brief muscle weakness triggered by distress.

Feeling aggrieved, Schokman decided to take legal action and took the resort owners, CCIG Investments Pty Ltd, to court.

Queensland's Supreme Court initially found the resort owners 'vicariously liable' and ordered a hefty $431,738 payout to Schokman.

However, this decision was upended by the state Court of Appeals, which decidedly pointed its gavel in the other direction on review. They held that the somewhat whimsically (or maybe, tragically) named Daydream Island Resort wasn't liable for the actions of Hewett.

In the eyes of the law, while Hewett was abiding by his employee contract, which required him to live at the resort's staff accommodation, his 'tortious act' had no connection or relation to his work responsibilities.

In simple terms, the court ruled that Hewett's outrageous, drunken act was not the resort's responsibility.

'Nothing in the present case pointed to the drunken act of Hewett being authorised, being in any way required by, or being incidental to, his employment,' the judgment summary succinctly stated.

'In truth, it had no real connection to it.'

This shocking story is a stark reminder of the bizarre incidents that can occur and how the law can sometimes take an unexpected pathway.

For those feeling incredulous, keep in mind that justice often takes many forms, and the legal system—complex as it may be—is there to ensure fairness reigns in its unique, often convoluted, way.

Key Takeaways

• A man took resort owners CCIG Investments Pty Ltd to court after his work colleague urinated on him, causing a cataplectic attack.
• Queensland's Supreme Court had previously found the resort owners were 'vicariously liable' as an employer and ordered a $431,738 payout.
• The state Court of Appeals overturned the previous ruling, stating that CCIG Investments Pty Ltd were not liable for the employee's actionsee.
• The court found that the 'wrongful act' was not conducted in the context of employment and had insufficient connection to the workplace or employment obligations.

Stay tuned for more tales of the unexpected, and remember, whether it's a resort or any form of shared living quarters, proper decorum should always be observed—and yes, especially when alcohol is flowing freely!

Let's hope such incidents serve as reminders of the importance of respect for personal space. After all, we are all adults.

We've all had a nightmare neighbour, but this story is as outrageous and unbelievable as it gets. What are your thoughts, folks? Share them with us in the comments section below!

Daydream, morelike bloody nightmare?

 

[mylittletibbies]

Having had an alcoholic husband from a previous long ago life I can tell you that people who drink to that excess will pee anywhere, on the bedroom floor, all over my clothes in the wardrobe, in the kitchen sink, on the hallway mat, sitting on top of three suitcases in a storage cupboard and worst of all wetting the bed.
I don't see why the employer should be responsible for this disgusting behaviour. They should have sacked him and made law.as to how much alcohol could be consumed by employees while on the island.
This person obviously has a bad drinking habit to be so paraletic as to do something like this.
Dr. told me they have blackouts and don't remember doing it the next day.

 

[Luckyus]

Having had an alcoholic husband from a previous long ago life I can tell you that people who drink to that excess will pee anywhere, on the bedroom floor, all over my clothes in the wardrobe, in the kitchen sink, on the hallway mat, sitting on top of three suitcases in a storage cupboard and worst of all wetting the bed.
I don't see why the employer should be responsible for this disgusting behaviour. They should have sacked him and made law.as to how much alcohol could be consumed by employees while on the island.
This person obviously has a bad drinking habit to be so paraletic as to do something like this.
Dr. told me they have blackouts and don't remember doing it the next day.

One Tequila, Two Tequila, three Tequila Floor!!.