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 to help Phil at the scene are most likely to recover compensation for nervous shock. They were in close proximity to the accident and directly saw the aftermath, which makes their experience more foreseeable and connected to the accident. The ambulance attendants arrived after Phil had already passed and the claims by people who witnessed the incident on TV or read about it in the paper are less likely to be successful as they were not physically present at the scene. The reporter who interviewed family members may also have a claim, but it would depend on the nature and extent of their relationship with Phil and the surviving family members.

Phil Was Riding His Motorcycle Home from Work When He