Royal Prank Call Nurse 'Commits Suicide'

[Aardvark154]

No, if you had read the post you would have learned that my argument is, that the pranksters hardly obtained anything that was not in the royal press release.

So tell us why you believe that the above has anything to do with whether attempting to obtain or obtaining the information in this sort of invasion of privacy related to medical records and treatment situation was either criminal conduct and/or cause for a civil suit?

It should be added that there are indeed types of cases where the fact that the information is public is an excellent defence.

 

[rld]

No, if you had read the post you would have learned that my argument is, that the pranksters hardly obtained anything that was not in the royal press release. The call is on Youtube, if you care to know what information was givwn out.

So you agree that the DJs committed fraud and violated the Austrialian Radio broadcasting code?

Do you think that it is a rational use of a nurse's time to give out information to pranksters, or do you think her time could better be spent performing duties or some such?

 

[fuji]

A prank call could be a factor in a suicide.

Sure. Being declined for a credit card could "be a factor" in a suicide. A rude word from a stranger. Loss of a job. Termination of a relationship. A baked cake not rising properly in the oven. A pimple could be a factor. Cancellation of a favored TV show. So what?

"Being a factor" is far, far, far away from having any responsibility. Mentally ill people do not do things for rational reasons.

 

[blackrock13]

Please inform your fellow legal experts Aardie and Blakie.

Really? Nowhere have I ever claimed to be an expert in the law. We sure see one of you problems, reading stuff that isn't there. Others refer to that as make believe.

 

[blackrock13]

No, if you had read the post you would have learned that my argument is, that the pranksters hardly obtained anything that was not in the royal press release. The call is on Youtube, if you care to know what information was givwn out.

Hardly? We have no idea what exact information was released, only what others deemed suitable for the public. The recordings released were edited.

 

[rld]

Sure. Being declined for a credit card could "be a factor" in a suicide. A rude word from a stranger. Loss of a job. Termination of a relationship. A baked cake not rising properly in the oven. A pimple could be a factor. Cancellation of a favored TV show. So what?

"Being a factor" is far, far, far away from having any responsibility. Mentally ill people do not do things for rational reasons.

Being a factor is not very far away at all from having legal responsibility in Canada. Not far at all. Feel free to look up the 1% rule in Ontario and how it relates to the negligence act, and the concept of joint and several liability. Once you understand those ideas really well...then you will likely completely modify your stance. Because in Ontario, it is dead wrong.

But of course one of us actually knows what he is talking about on this subject, the other is just making stuff up because his first two theories turned out to be bullshit.

 

[Aardvark154]

Sure. Being declined for a credit card could "be a factor" in a suicide. A rude word from a stranger. Loss of a job. Termination of a relationship. A baked cake not rising properly in the oven. A pimple could be a factor. Cancellation of a favored TV show. So what?

"Being a factor" is far, far, far away from having any responsibility. Mentally ill people do not do things for rational reasons.

Really Fuji, over and beyond RLD's point above. Being denied a credit card, in the same league as deliberately 'phoning a hospital in an attempt (dispite their denials) to get someone to talk out of tern about a VVIP patient? Then when you suceed not saying to your boss - broadcasting this would be very wrong, instead you gloat about how great it was you put a fast one over on people before the screech of dawn!

 

[fuji]

So you are telling me that if a woman commits suicide because her cake didn't rise in the oven, that the vendor of the baking powder she used is liable for her suicide, if it turns out they were negligent in providing a good quality baking powder?

 

[fuji]

Really Fuji, being denied a credit card, in the same league as deliberately 'phoning a hospital in an attempt (dispite their denials) to get someone to talk out of tern about a VVIP patient?

OK, let's say that she was unfairly declined a credit card. She should have got it. The company was negligent, and declined her unfairly, after making a gross error in processing her file.

Then yes, I would say that is entirely equivalent.

 

[Aardvark154]

This is becoming another Fuji v the world

 

[danmand]

So you agree that the DJs committed fraud and violated the Austrialian Radio broadcasting code?

Do you think that it is a rational use of a nurse's time to give out information to pranksters, or do you think her time could better be spent performing duties or some such?

I agree that a DJ poorly impersonated the british Queen. I do not know if that is considered Fraud in Australia, or if it violates that country's RBC.

I did agree that the prank was in poor taste.

 

[Aardvark154]

Danmand, at least domestically in most jurisdictions (under the infamous "choice of law") the law that applies is that of where the call was received not where the call was made.

 

[Aardvark154]

Of course Arthur although all of us have been "guilty" of conflating the law of various jurisdictions. The law that actually applies here is British or more specifically if there is a difference English Law.

 

[Aardvark154]

You don't mean "conflating". You mean "confusing".

Actually I do.

Perhaps Australian law also applies, but if I know that English law applies why would I bother with Australian law? The harm has been done in England and the victims/plaintiffs are there.

 

[Insidious Von]

This is getting too technical so I'll take it back to the gut.

The Royal Family are evil.

They disposed of Diana when she became a liability. The nurse after getting duped of The Duchess of Cornhole, knew that it meant a loss of livelihood and intense public scorn. As a commoner she did what she felt she had to. And let's not kid ourselves; The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would have betrayed Britain to the Nazis in the same manner that The House of Savoy betrayed Italy to the Fascist.

Prince Eugine must still be rolling in his grave.

 

[Aardvark154]

Prince Eugine must still be rolling in his grave.

Utter balderdash!

But a French-Italian in the service of the Holy Roman Empire???

 

[rld]

The "1% rule" in negligence cases in Ontario only applies where there is joint and several liability, among other things. You have totally misunderstood this.
It does NOT mean that someone, a sole defendant, can be found "1% responsible" and then saddled with a massive judgement, as if they were 100% responsible.
Total. Nonsense.

Also, people are conflating arguments about criminal liability for fraud, and civil or moral responsibility for the nurse's suicide. The arguments around the latter are ridiculous.

Try to follow the discussion.

I make no comments on criminal law. Nada.

Fuji asserts, there are other causes and that there is no legal responsibility because there are other causes. I say there is legal responsibility, or would be in Ontario, because of the negligence act and joint and several responsibility. I have not said anything about quantum of damages, and if fact if you bothered to read the threads I have made it clear I don't think the suicide was reasonably forseeable. Thus there would likely be no damages.

Now if you really knew what you were talking about you would know that the joint and several rule only applies where there are multiple tortfeasors, in this case I don't know that there are, but Fuji seems to think so. So that law is relevant.

But we can move on from there is you like. IF there are not multiple tortfeasors and we are only interested in considering the actions of the DJ's than the only reason there can be a split of liability would be in there was contributory negligence, which we have no evidence of. Fuji thinks there might be, but that is just speculation.

So the last scenario is that there is no contributory negligence, and just one tortfeasor who might be responsible beyond the level of de minimus. So in the situation where there is no contrib. and one tortfeasor, and some evidence of causation...what is the outcome. That should answer your question pretty quickly arthur.

However, the question of responsibility is a separate one from damages now isn't it?

Fraud is also a tort. A civil wrong, as well as a criminal wrong, so the word can be used in either context. It seems like you are the one who has been confused.

I have been litigating tort cases for more than two decades now. I can speak with some confidence on the concepts involved. Which is more than I can say for you.

 

[fuji]

It isn't might. Other than quacks every psychiatric expert you can find will tell you that suicide is caused by mental illness, with the possible exception of people suffering severe chronic pain.

 

[rld]

It isn't might. Other than quacks every psychiatric expert you can find will tell you that suicide is caused by mental illness, with the possible exception of people suffering severe chronic pain.

But you have ZERO actual information about this lady's mental health status before the crank call. So you continue to speculate. Feel free.

 

[fuji]

But you have ZERO actual information about this lady's mental health status before the crank call. So you continue to speculate. Feel free.

Nope. I have a lot of information about her mental health. I know that she died by suicide. Therefore she was certainly mentally ill.