. The plaintiff was a fastidiously clean man with a fastidiously clean house.

For health reasons,

his family consumed only purified, bottled water, which he purchased from the defendant
company. While replacing an empty bottle, the plaintiff discovered that the new bottle
contained the remains of a fly. Although the contaminated water was not consumed and did
not cause anyone to suffer any physical injury, the plaintiff became obsessed with the event
and its “revolting implications” for the health of his family. He constantly thought of flies
crawling across garbage or animal feces and then swimming in his supposedly pure water. His
personality changed dramatically. His hairstyling business lost clients because he was depressed
and no longer had a sense of humour. He was unable to have sex with his wife. He could not
properly shower because he could not bear the thought of water on his face. He was so
sickened by the thought of contaminated water that he could no longer drink tea or coffee. He
often felt like he was going to vomit. The defendant, however, proved that the plaintiff’s
reaction to the tainted water was unusual and extreme. A normal person, in the same
circumstances, might have been angered or mildly disgusted by the sight of the fly, but those
feelings would have passed within a few hours and there would be no real lasting harm. Discuss
the various elements of the plaintiff’s claim in negligence against the defendant. Is a court likely
to impose liability? Explain your answer
Case 8 chapter6

Issue: Whether Defendant will be liable for negligence tort toward the plaintiff?

Rule:

The plaintiff must prove the four elements of negligence tort to succussed in their
claim against the defendant: If one element is missing the plaintiff will not get
money: The following four steps are:

Step 1: Duty of Care Determining Existence of Duty of Care

We do not have responsibility toward everyone only people we can reasonably
predict to hurt if we were not careful. We owe a duty of care to people who are
reasonably foreseeable we could harm if we are not careful. The duty of care
exists if the defendant required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the
plaintiff.

Was there a sufficient proximity Is there a close and direct connection between
parties. Commercial Proximity: the relationship between the buyer and seller
(seller making money from buyer)

Step 2: Breach of Standard of care: Level of carefulness: Main question: What

would a careful person have done in the same situation that this person getting
sued found themselves in?
How the law decides if someone is not careful enough. we have to do the
following:
 Reasonable Person test – Reasonably foreseeable – Something that an ordinary
person would be able to predict or expect would occur as a result of their
actions.
 Reasonable person to be one who is thoughtful, acts only after reflective
consideration, and avoids any behavior that might present a danger to others.
 Only if you are less careful than a reasonable person then we will have breach
of standard of care
 Does not require perfection: in the law nobody can 100% guarantees the safety
of others.

 Step3: CAUSATION for damages: “BUT FOR” Test: except for:

Damage must be caused as a direct result of the careless conduct (but for)
The rule is through “BUT FOR” test
If I remove the carelessness behaviour does the accident still happen?
 if yes, the accident still happens so I did not cause the damage.
 if not, the accident will not happen, so I established causation.

Step 4. Was the damage caused too remote?

Damage was predictable: damage was reasonably foreseeable: Damage was not
too remote
• Whether a reasonable person would have anticipated the general class or
character of injury (Is the type of damage foreseeable
• The thin skull rules: Would a regular person be somewhat harm or hurt (even
with some damage) and if yes then you are responsible for all the damage was
done? If no, Then the thin skill rule said you are not liable for damages.
The court tries to strike balance between its desire to compensate the plaintiff
and its desire to treat the defendant fairly.
Application:

1- Step 1: Duty of Care:

The customers are reasonably foreseeable for the company as they may got hurt
if the company is not careful and carelessness. As a result, the company has a
duty of care toward its customer and employees

The defendant bought the water from the company, so it is commercial proximity
as the company got money form the defendant. As a result, the company has a
duty of care toward the defendant.

2- step 2: breach of level of care: The question did not mention that the company
was careless or not. So, we assumed that company breach the level of contract.

3- step 3: causation for damage “but for” test: If the water was clean the
defendant will not get the sever reaction from seen a remain of fly in water.
The company was the reason for the damages that the defendant has, and they
are responsible for his behaviour.

4- Step 4. Was the damage caused too remote? The damages that plaintiff has
from the accident is not foreseeable because a reasonable person will not have
the horrible reaction that the defendant has. According to the thin skull rule: A
reasonable person will not get hurt at all by the view of the remain of flies in the
water.

Conclusion: the company is not liable toward the defendant.