Euromillions Endangerment.

The_Minister

This a hypothetical situation which would be most interesting:
I win the Euromillions and keep it quiet. Then I am exposed by a paper. I then go to court to seek a decision saying that the exposure of my name leads to reckless endangerment of my life and ask that in the event of my kidnapping and murder, due to my winnings that the editor of the exposing paper be held liable.
Remember I would not be in danger if not for the paper exposing me.


Would that be viable?

Mr_Roger_Bongos

I'd say you could get reckless endangerment after your kidnap and murder, based on the Barr tribunal and the R.T.E. journalist, but you'd have to prove the events took place because of the newspaper article (e.g. planned after reading).

But i don't think the courts would grant a decision to say "on your death, the paper will be responsible"! Surely there's public policy issues there!

Thirdfox

Well there was the case that the "Viper" (some Dublin underworld gangmember I think) wanted to stop a newspaper publishing an article about him on the grounds that it would infringe his right to life if they did.

The court threw out that case...

However in this case I would probably distinguish it from the above by saying that there is no duty to report this (i.e. no great public interest). You would be seeking an injunction to prevent the newspaper from publishing your name.

But saying that the editor is liable for your death... depends on what his/her intention was. But I can't see a court allowing the argument that people would try to kill you if you won the lottery.

You could probably also sue for invasion of privacy. (if you want some more money )

dermot_sheehan

Firespinner wrote:

This a hypothetical situation which would be most interesting:
I win the Euromillions and keep it quiet. Then I am exposed by a paper. I then go to court to seek a decision saying that the exposure of my name leads to reckless endangerment of my life and ask that in the event of my kidnapping and murder, due to my winnings that the editor of the exposing paper be held liable.
Remember I would not be in danger if not for the paper exposing me.


Would that be viable?

You'll have to look at the standard requirements for a negligence action, duty of care, breach of duty of care, damage.

First question, did the paper owe you a duty of care? Donoghue v. Stevens says that you owe a duty of care to everyone you can reasonably foresee being injured by your actions. Sometimes however courts would exclude duty for issues of public policy (e.g. someone who causes a break in an underground powercable is not liable to the thousands that lost power).

Second question, was there a breach of that duty that caused damage? The paper could argue that the independent actions of a group of criminals was a novus actus intervenes (literally new action intervening) that broke the chain of causation. Why should they be held liable for the independent actions of a 3rd party.

Finally damage, you haven't actually suffered damage if you haven't been kidnapped, though you might be able to claim for increased worry (emotional distress) and security costs.


Alternatively you could sue for breach of confidence. The information that you won was confidential information between you and the national lotto.

besty

Clearly the issue would be regarding causation. I don't think the hypothetical editor could be liable as his actions are too far removed from the actus reus of the kidnap/murder. Perhaps some form of liability could be proven against the paper but for policy issues, the court surely wouldn't hold the publisher directly liable.

Interesting though.

The_Minister

If no-one would have known what you had if not for that paper, and you get killed because of that knowledge, surely some blame accrues to them, as it is reasonable to assume from past instances (Dolores McNamara) that kidnapping and possible murder would be a threat.

TheVan

Interesting alright and I can see your point in this case. However the good old floodgates argument would almost certainly enter into it. For example here's another hypothetical:
Say that the IRA was still active (hypothetical remember) and Michael McDowell said to a reporter, while having a drink with him, that Gerry Adams was a git....if the reporter published this statement, could he be said to be endangering McDowell's life? Could he be held responsible for the actions of the IRA?

There are all sorts of issues here, notably freedom of speech which is of course very topical!

Great discussion thread though and the kind of thing we like to see on this thread!

The_Minister

TheVan wrote:

Great discussion thread though and the kind of thing we like to see on this thread!

Yea!! I'm loved

m4cker

I don't think you have the right to anonymity in the case of a Euro Millions winn unlike in the Irish Lotto. So you could have the potential to take the case against the lotto itself.

The_Minister

m4cker wrote:

I don't think you have the right to anonymity in the case of a Euro Millions winn unlike in the Irish Lotto. So you could have the potential to take the case against the lotto itself.

Why not? Surely its even more important to hide it.

NUTLEY BOY

You would probably have difficulty getting over the first step of establishing a duty of care. If no authorities can be found you will be in the delightful position of having to make law. Mind you it would be academic if you were already "outed" !

If it ever happens make a contract with your solicitor and or establish a trust. Get him to collect the cheque and then split it up in to a number of payments to the 15 different bank accounts that you will open and forget about litigation !!