Prank Royal phone call causes nurse to commit suicide

[Kristie]

It should be illegal to be that stupid though.

[Cormac]

Your hospital was legally exposed. Only a minimal risk, but nonetheless, exposed.

I would not like a hospital to assume that I was ok with them even acknowledging that I was there, let alone revealing any detail whatsoever about my health or lack thereof.

They asked when you were checked in if your condition could be released. We could give the room number, room phone number, the unit the patient was on and their general condition, unless otherwise requested by the patient or their family. Pretty big hospital, so I'm sure they knew what was legal and what wasn't.

Ah, the checkin covered them.

[Jason]

That still sounds like utter nonsense to me. They did not set out with the foreknowledge that they would cause someone 'damage' and I don't accept that they did cause said 'damage'. The application of the 'eggshell skull' common law in this instance seems to me to be absurd in the extreme. Before I continue, however, I have to ask you to define how their actions were 'reckless' (with a suitable legal definition of reckless if applicable) and what this 'damage' is that they supposedly caused so I don't start arguing down a blind alley.

I have given a definition of reckless. It is a term central to the Tort of Negligence. In effect it refers to where a person proceeds with an act that is likely to cause damage to another person.

Is that it? I thought there must be more because that's obviously inapplicable here.

They did know that damage would accrue, or at least they should have. It is clear that anyone who fell for the ruse would be subjected to disciplinary action. They proceeded regardless. That the ultimate damage accrued may have been more serious is not a mitigating factor.

That's rubbish. They did not know and no amount of subjunctives will make them culpable. It is not clear that disciplinary action would follow, and even if it did it's absurd to hold them to account for it. It's akin to someone getting rowdy, causing an altercation, and being held responsible for the charges brought against someone who assaults them. The question of whether they knew or should have known doesn't even enter into it. The buck stops with the hospital staff.

Also you still have failed to define 'damages', unless disciplinary action is all you meant. In which case any number of things should be considered actionable such as reporting the incompetence of one of your fellow employees to management with the knowledge that they may be dismissed.

[Cormac]

That still sounds like utter nonsense to me. They did not set out with the foreknowledge that they would cause someone 'damage' and I don't accept that they did cause said 'damage'. The application of the 'eggshell skull' common law in this instance seems to me to be absurd in the extreme. Before I continue, however, I have to ask you to define how their actions were 'reckless' (with a suitable legal definition of reckless if applicable) and what this 'damage' is that they supposedly caused so I don't start arguing down a blind alley.

I have given a definition of reckless. It is a term central to the Tort of Negligence. In effect it refers to where a person proceeds with an act that is likely to cause damage to another person.

Is that it? I thought there must be more because that's obviously inapplicable here.

They did know that damage would accrue, or at least they should have. It is clear that anyone who fell for the ruse would be subjected to disciplinary action. They proceeded regardless. That the ultimate damage accrued may have been more serious is not a mitigating factor.

That's rubbish. They did not know and no amount of subjunctives will make them culpable. It is not clear that disciplinary action would follow, and even if it did it's absurd to hold them to account for it. It's akin to someone getting rowdy, causing an altercation, and being held responsible for the charges brought against someone who assaults them. The question of whether they knew or should have known doesn't even enter into it. The buck stops with the hospital staff.

Also you still have failed to define 'damages', unless disciplinary action is all you meant. In which case any number of things should be considered actionable such as reporting the incompetence of one of your fellow employees to management with the knowledge that they may be dismissed.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm explaining what the Common Law is likely to say about such matters in a negligence claim.

You can rail against the Common Law all you like Pord.

[Jason]

Rubbish. Where's Fretmeister when you need him?

[Gallstones]

I called women ma'am when I answered hospital phones. I wasn't expecting calls from royalty though. Just common courtesy.

That's because it's an american word.
They don't use it here.

And I say a few things that have rubbed off on me from my British buddies round here.

When I grew up, maam was only said on cowboy tv programs and films.
There was gunsmoke, and cheyenne, and the Lone ranger etc.

I have no idea where the queen got it from. People call her maam because that's what the palace tell everyone to call her.
Nobody calls anybody maam in britain apart from her.
Maybe she's a fan of cowboy films.

It is also a common South Eastern US courtesy.
It is not one used where I grew up (North West). In the Army we did refer to female officers as Ma'am, males as Sir.

[Cormac]

Rubbish. Where's Fretmeister when you need him?

Careful, your emotion is showing...

[JimC]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

[Cormac]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

Well, this would be a civil case, being one centred on negligence. They could run the case in England, although securing attendance, and indeed enforcement might prove costly. But, the case could be heard in Australia too. There are international agreements covering jurisdiction in such cases. Except in financial services law, I didn't spend a whole lot of time on jurisdiction in international tort cases.

If the station is part of a larger organisation, part of which is located in the UK, that would make it more likely that it would be held in the UK.

Criminal law is another matter, and there may indeed be some questions to answer in this regard too. I've not thought too much about this aspect of it.

[aspire1670]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

Well, this would be a civil case, being one centred on negligence. They could run the case in England, although securing attendance, and indeed enforcement might prove costly. But, the case could be heard in Australia too. There are international agreements covering jurisdiction in such cases. Except in financial services law, I didn't spend a whole lot of time on jurisdiction in international tort cases.

If the station is part of a larger organisation, part of which is located in the UK, that would make it more likely that it would be held in the UK.

Criminal law is another matter, and there may indeed be some questions to answer in this regard too. I've not thought too much about this aspect of it.

Are you claiming to have expertise in the law? You haven't even established whether the two DJs or the radio station owed the nurse a duty of care. You haven't established whether the nurse has any dependants who could bring a case. But you have established you know how how to talk out of your arse, again.

[Cormac]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

Well, this would be a civil case, being one centred on negligence. They could run the case in England, although securing attendance, and indeed enforcement might prove costly. But, the case could be heard in Australia too. There are international agreements covering jurisdiction in such cases. Except in financial services law, I didn't spend a whole lot of time on jurisdiction in international tort cases.

If the station is part of a larger organisation, part of which is located in the UK, that would make it more likely that it would be held in the UK.

Criminal law is another matter, and there may indeed be some questions to answer in this regard too. I've not thought too much about this aspect of it.

Are you claiming to have expertise in the law? You haven't even established whether the two DJs or the radio station owed the nurse a duty of care. You haven't established whether the nurse has any dependants who could bring a case. But you have established you know how how to talk out of your arse, again.

As "establishing" is for a court I don't need to.

Tell me again about talking out of one's arse about the law?

[Jason]

Rubbish. Where's Fretmeister when you need him?

Careful, your emotion is showing...

At least I don't allow it to dictate my thinking.

[Cormac]

Rubbish. Where's Fretmeister when you need him?

Careful, your emotion is showing...

At least I don't allow it to dictate my thinking.

ISWYDT.

[aspire1670]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

Well, this would be a civil case, being one centred on negligence. They could run the case in England, although securing attendance, and indeed enforcement might prove costly. But, the case could be heard in Australia too. There are international agreements covering jurisdiction in such cases. Except in financial services law, I didn't spend a whole lot of time on jurisdiction in international tort cases.

If the station is part of a larger organisation, part of which is located in the UK, that would make it more likely that it would be held in the UK.

Criminal law is another matter, and there may indeed be some questions to answer in this regard too. I've not thought too much about this aspect of it.

Are you claiming to have expertise in the law? You haven't even established whether the two DJs or the radio station owed the nurse a duty of care. You haven't established whether the nurse has any dependants who could bring a case. But you have established you know how how to talk out of your arse, again.

As "establishing" is for a court I don't need to.

Tell me again about talking out of one's arse about the law?

Lol, that word establishing, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Tell me again, how is a duty of care established in common law? Would it apply in this instance and how would you set about establishing the presence of the other elements of negligence? Give it your best shot.

[Cormac]

Anyway, the whole legal thing is moot, I suspect...

Australian radio station, pranking the British...

What court would be appropriate?

Well, this would be a civil case, being one centred on negligence. They could run the case in England, although securing attendance, and indeed enforcement might prove costly. But, the case could be heard in Australia too. There are international agreements covering jurisdiction in such cases. Except in financial services law, I didn't spend a whole lot of time on jurisdiction in international tort cases.

If the station is part of a larger organisation, part of which is located in the UK, that would make it more likely that it would be held in the UK.

Criminal law is another matter, and there may indeed be some questions to answer in this regard too. I've not thought too much about this aspect of it.

Are you claiming to have expertise in the law? You haven't even established whether the two DJs or the radio station owed the nurse a duty of care. You haven't established whether the nurse has any dependants who could bring a case. But you have established you know how how to talk out of your arse, again.

As "establishing" is for a court I don't need to.

Tell me again about talking out of one's arse about the law?

Lol, that word establishing, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Tell me again, how is a duty of care established in common law? Would it apply in this instance and how would you set about establishing the presence of the other elements of negligence? Give it your best shot.

If you have an argument, I will read and respond to it. So far, you are long on opinion, and very short on anything approaching an actual argument.

Knock yourself out.