Date:
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:37:58 -0600
From:
Lewis Klar
Subject:
A Fly in the Bottle This Time
Jason
raises a very interesting point. Is the question of whether it was
reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff, as a reasonable person,
could suffer injury as result of seeing a dead fly in a bottle a
question of fact or a question of law (or a question of mixed fact
and law)? I take the position that ordinarily foreseeability of
injury is a question of fact and I say so in my book (at p. 156).
I say that in a case tried by a jury, "it is up to the jury
to determine whether injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable ...
etc". Am I wrong? Do you think that the issue of whether in
any particular case, on the facts of that case, an injury (either
physical or psychological) to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable
is a question of fact or a question of law? I know that with psychological
injuries the issue is more focused; that is we ask whether a psychological
injury was reasonably foreseeable to a person of normal susceptibilities,
but do you think that this means that this turns the question into
a question of law?
Views?
Lewis
>>>
Jason Neyers 7/14/2006 2:24 PM >>>
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.
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
|