Ultraman

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 00:13 發表


really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

Trust me, that's at Common Law in Canada.
I don't have an exact link on hand. But I think you can search it online as "land ownership", "real estate ownership", or "extent of land ownership"... etc. You might able to find it.

Ultraman

原帖由 Manlau 於 2009-3-8 05:35 發表
Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions: 1) If a staff of CX got a stroke because of this woman abnormal behavior, can the staff sue this woman for negligence or some other reason? 2) If we own the sky above our house and the ground below it, how are we going to split the ownership for owners who live in a multi-storeys building such as apartment? 3) And do we have the right to mine under our house?

1) Yes, anyone can try to sue another with his/her own reason (doesn't necessary mean he/she will succeed at the end). In this case, the staff can seek for civil action only.
2) At Common Law, the "ownership" of the sky above and ground below is a legal (but abstract) concept. Practically, it has been modified that the land owner owns or has rights in the airspace above his/her property only to the extent that the land owner can make effective use of it. And for the ground below, Provincial Governments have reserved rights for the use of it.
3) First, it's about zoning. Second, whether it's for your own personal use or for commercial use (you can try to apply it). Third, the Provincial Government has rights to take your land if there are precious mineral, metals and/or petroleum underground, and in return to give you compensation.

sheep

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 01:50 發表
yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the str ...

有可能
因此 电影公司會响当眼處 貼張告示出泥
話 如果你响呢度行过
有可能會被拍入鏡头內
如果唔想  請掉头走

[ 本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-3-8 16:06 編輯 ]

mcvities

i too agree that the staff should never take the video in the first place. i'm sure he/she had violated some sort of 'code of conduct' on their staff manual. by allowing someone to broadcast it (with the intention to humiliate and broadcast a client's negative image), it's obviously a no-no in the service industry! how would u feel, if you phone telus to complain about something, and the call centre staff recorded your voice clip and broadcast it? i guess you might argue yelling over the phone is more acceptable than throwing a tantrum in the public. but to me, the staff is obviously not professional and inappropriate. they are supposed to protect a client's privacy. instead, they caused harm without knowing the background of the woman.

tofu

the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.
the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-9 22:12 發表
the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.

Of course, if the one who filmed was not a CX staff but a "nobody bystander", probably no one can dig him/her out and thus no "唔尊重客人" would have occurred.
So called "there is no privacy in the middle of the airport" means, anyone inside the airport might be monitored by the airport for security reason anyways, but doesn't mean anyone can film or photograph any other one(s) and broadcast them without any concern and liability.

the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.

Of course, there are "statute law" (public law) and "civil law". For example, you killed somebody, that is under statute law. And if you divorce, that is under civil law.
The case was not enough for the lady to sue CX for legal (statutory) liability, yet she may successfully sue CX for civil liability. However, sometimes civil matters could be more time consuming than legal matters (no concrete evidence and is much more debatable sometimes), and that's why some people would choose to have settlement outside court. Same as this case.