I took it to mean the proper defendant would be the airline because they were the one's who caused the damage which she is claiming to suffer from. i.e. in the cases of Mc Loughlin where a third party informed her of the accident, the action is against the neg party. If she had heard from another reliable course, i think it would still be tortfeasor. She was going to suffer as a result of their neg act n matter who told her. Although it might also be relevant to say she would have claim against the radio station. Im not fully sure either.
On 11 Oct, 17:54, Fee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know the answer to this but my take on it would be that the > proper defendant would be the radio station, because it was pointed > out in Alcock that seeing a disaster on TV could never amount to > sufficient proximity unless they did close ups, which the don't, but > if they did then the TV station would be the right person to take the > action against. So i wonder here if the fact that they said that all > the people were killed would make it comparable to doing the close ups- > as in if it was 80 out of 100 died then she would have no claim as she > wouldn't know they were dead but the fact it was "all" meant that she > knew they were definitely dead... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
