Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:24:24 +0000 (GMT)

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: A Fly in the Bottle This Time

Dear Colleagues:

I strongly disagree with Lewis. I do not think that the case is correctly decided as a matter of law: It is not reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer a psychiatric illness as a result of the facts that occurred. In order for the thin skull rule to kick-in I must first prove something that would be considered a wrong to a reasonable/typical person, if I prove that then the extent of the injury is irrelevant (Deyong). As such thin skull is irrelevant to Mustapha.

I would be shocked if this is not overturned on appeal on the tort issue.

Whether or not there might be liability in contract is another matter and part of the problem with the judgment, as I remember it, is that the trial judge never truly distinguishes between the two types of liability.

Cheers,

----- Original Message -----
From: Lewis KLAR
Date: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: ODG: A Fly in the Bottle This Time

Hi:

I read the case and my first impression was that it is ridiculous. But I suppose my attitude exhibits the traditional distrusts that are associated with these types of claims (suspicions about nature of psychological injury, the potential for abuse and fraud, the abnormal sensitivities of some plaintiffs, and so on). The assessment issue is interesting - was this a thin skull type or a crumbling personality type?? His reaction and after effects seem pretty extreme, no?

But as a matter of law, it seemed correctly decided. Will the C of A decide that it was a "perverse" judgment?

I will stay tuned.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>