Mr. Wuddah Mustapha and his wife are loyal customers to Culligan who had been purchasing their water for fifteen years. On November 21, 2001, they saw a dead fly and part of another dead fly in the unopened replacement bottle water from Culligan, no one in his family (including Mr. Mustapha himself) drank from the bottle. What Mr. Mustapha saw in the bottle made him imagine the picture of flies walking on animal feces that then contaminated his water. The image brought him serious psychiatric harm with associated phobia and anxiety. He sued Culligan and was successful at the trial level. Justice John Brokenshire of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded him $80,000 in damage, $24,174.58 in special damages, and $237,600 for loss of business.
…show more content…
In Mustapha case, Mr. Mustapha is a classical ‘thin-skulled’ plaintiff who is particularly more fragile than the norm. So, is the court’s decision consistent with the Thin Skull Rule? Does the Court’s decision have any impact on the it?
Under the Thin Skull Rule, if someone harmed another person who looks normal but has an extremely ‘thin skull’, the defendant who injured the ‘thin skull’ must be responsible for all the damages the plaintiff incurred, even though the damage would be much greater compare to the harm that a normal person could suffer. It is based on the idea that it is fair for the defendant to compensate for all the damage s/he caused to the plaintiff. Hence the defendant should take the plaintiff ‘as s/he finds him’.
Thin Skull Rule gives the guild on how to measure damages, after the liability was established. However, an important condition under the rule is that the defendant is not legally required to show a higher duty of care to the plaintiff. He or she only ought to exercises the same level of care to the ‘thin skull’ as to all other normal people. In fact, Culligan had no actual acknowledge of Mr. M’s sensibilities prior providing him water. It follows that Culligan should not be liable for Mr. M’s mental harm given the fact that a person of ordinary fortitude and robustness would not have suffered serious psychological injury. The following quote is from the case of Vanek …show more content…
“
Thus, the Mustapha case decision was consistent with the Thin Skull Rule and it didn’t make any impact on it.
Primary Victim vs. Secondary Victim
The primary and secondary victim mechanism is used in manage psychiatric illness in England. Mr. Mustapha’s counsel had argued for the adoption of it on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court refused to accept the distinction between primary and secondary victim that was originally adopted in the United Kingdom.
Primary victim is the person who involved in the incident and has real or foreseeable physical harm as a result of another party’s negligence. Under the law from UK, the primary victim was not required to show that the psychiatric harm was foreseeable given the personal injury was foreseeable. Secondary victim
The Court ruled that the psychiatric harm must be foreseeable for bath cases (primary and secondary victims). Thus Mr. M could not skip the foreseeability test and directly jump into the thin skull rule for seeking compensation for his
In Mustapha case, Mr. Mustapha is a classical ‘thin-skulled’ plaintiff who is particularly more fragile than the norm. So, is the court’s decision consistent with the Thin Skull Rule? Does the Court’s decision have any impact on the it?
Under the Thin Skull Rule, if someone harmed another person who looks normal but has an extremely ‘thin skull’, the defendant who injured the ‘thin skull’ must be responsible for all the damages the plaintiff incurred, even though the damage would be much greater compare to the harm that a normal person could suffer. It is based on the idea that it is fair for the defendant to compensate for all the damage s/he caused to the plaintiff. Hence the defendant should take the plaintiff ‘as s/he finds him’.
Thin Skull Rule gives the guild on how to measure damages, after the liability was established. However, an important condition under the rule is that the defendant is not legally required to show a higher duty of care to the plaintiff. He or she only ought to exercises the same level of care to the ‘thin skull’ as to all other normal people. In fact, Culligan had no actual acknowledge of Mr. M’s sensibilities prior providing him water. It follows that Culligan should not be liable for Mr. M’s mental harm given the fact that a person of ordinary fortitude and robustness would not have suffered serious psychological injury. The following quote is from the case of Vanek …show more content…
“
Thus, the Mustapha case decision was consistent with the Thin Skull Rule and it didn’t make any impact on it.
Primary Victim vs. Secondary Victim
The primary and secondary victim mechanism is used in manage psychiatric illness in England. Mr. Mustapha’s counsel had argued for the adoption of it on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court refused to accept the distinction between primary and secondary victim that was originally adopted in the United Kingdom.
Primary victim is the person who involved in the incident and has real or foreseeable physical harm as a result of another party’s negligence. Under the law from UK, the primary victim was not required to show that the psychiatric harm was foreseeable given the personal injury was foreseeable. Secondary victim
The Court ruled that the psychiatric harm must be foreseeable for bath cases (primary and secondary victims). Thus Mr. M could not skip the foreseeability test and directly jump into the thin skull rule for seeking compensation for his