An Australian man alleged he was harassed by the sound and smell of his supervisor's farts, so he sued him and asked for $1.8 million in damages. The court, however, did not rule in his favor.
The Victoria Court of Appeal in Australia had to consider setting an appalling criterion this week.
David Hingst, an engineer, working in Melbourne, filed the lawsuit against Construction Engineering, his employer from May 2008 to April 2009.
The Melbourne bloke's appeal following his attempt to sue his old manager for uncontrolled farting was ineffective. The judge deliberated that there had been no bullying done against Hingst.
He claimed he experienced intimidation by his supervisor Greg Short, which included an incident in which Short allegedly farted on him. He also alleged he was unfairly retrenched from work.
Hingst claimed that Short would enter his windowless office numerous times in a week to transmit gas. He alleged the farts were deliberately aimed in his direction or on his person. Short reportedly found this comical.
The complainant appealed before the Court of Appeal on Monday. He called out his former supervisor as a serial farter, and that "flatulence is a form of bullying," reported Herald Sun.
"I would be sitting with my face to the wall and he (Short) would come into the room, which was small and had no windows. He would fart behind me and walk away. He would do this five or six times a day," reported Triple M.
The structural engineer, who resided and trained in Germany for two decades, stated his former manager had also abused him through phone calls and would taunt him occasionally with gestures. Hingst told the panel of judges that Short would allegedly thrust his bum at him while working.
Also Read: Can Farts Spread Coronavirus? Here's What a Doctor's Experiment Reveal
The lawsuit failed as decided by Justice Rita Zammit of the Victoria Supreme Court. She indicated that farting in the office was not equivalent to bullying.
The court was informed that Hingst sprayed Short with a can of deodorant and dubbed him "Mr. Stinky."
Hingst believed that the farting carried out should be regarded as an assault.
"And you sprayed deodorant at him," according to Justice Phillip Priest.
Justice Priest stated farts were not the focal issue in Hingst's initial allegation as it had underscored phone calls more.
Hingst countered the flatulence had resulted in him experiencing serious stress, and that must be taken into consideration.
Justice Zammit deliberated in favor of the former supervisor and rejecting allegations that he purportedly farted on Hingst. Zammit also regarded Hingst's redundancy as apparent.
The court disagreed with the claims and affirmed that Short's behavior did not reach the level of bullying or harassment and that the company had not been irresponsible. They did not rule on the information of Short's farting. The accused admitted that he "may have done" the act once or twice.
