POL- Oct29

POL Oct29 - Lecture 7 Mustafa Had been using Culligan water dispensers in his home and at work-Was changing the bottle at home when noticed a fly

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture 7 Mustafa – Had been using Culligan water dispensers in his home and at work. -Was changing the bottle at home when noticed a fly in the bottle -His wife vomited and felt abdominal pain -He vomited later and also felt abdominal pain -He claimed he suffered from many psychological ailments -Are the ailments possible/reasonable -If there is potential for physical harm, then there need not be any reasonable ‘foreseeability’ for nervous shock -Must always come back to duty of care -always a duty of care to foreseeable plaintiff -Mustafa’s reaction was found to be quite odd -There was a duty of care and standard of care both of which were breached but not towards this specific plaintiff -Mustafa’s reaction was too unlikely to be a foreseeable plaintiff -Not foreseeable that injury would result from this -Thin skull rule applies – take your victim as you find them – but only taken into account after liability is found Review Steps for duty of care ***
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1. Duty of Care 2. Standard of Care
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/04/2009 for the course PHIL 2821 taught by Professor Klimchuk during the Spring '09 term at UWO.

Page1 / 3

POL Oct29 - Lecture 7 Mustafa Had been using Culligan water dispensers in his home and at work-Was changing the bottle at home when noticed a fly

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online