Phil was riding his motorcycle home from work when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.As he lay on the road injured,he was attended to by two different motorists who stopped after seeing the accident.Additionally,an overhead helicopter from the local TV news station was broadcasting live on air.Suddenly,a second vehicle careened out of control and ran over Phil killing him instantly.Given concerns about proximity,foreseeability,and policy reasons,of all the people who suffered nervous shock,who would be most likely to recover compensation in a court action against the reckless driver of the second vehicle that caused Phil's death?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The two motorists who stopped and attended to Phil at the scene would be most likely to recover compensation for nervous shock as they were in close proximity to the accident and their shock was foreseeable. The people who witnessed the incident on TV and those who read about it in the newspaper would not be in close enough proximity to the accident and therefore their shock would not be foreseeable. The ambulance attendants arrived after Phil had died and would not have suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident.

Phil Was Riding His Motorcycle Home from Work When He