Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27. The Supreme Court rejected a claim for severe psychiatric harm following the discovery of flies in bottled water because the injury wasn't reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude. Medical proof of suffering doesn't remove the legal remoteness requirement.
Case card
Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27
The Supreme Court rejected a claim for severe psychiatric harm following the discovery of flies in bottled water because the injury wasn't reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude. Medical proof of suffering doesn't remove the legal remoteness requirement.
Binder · The business behind your business
Reading about it is one thing. Managing your own business issue is another.
A legal development is useful context. Your contracts, responsibilities, correspondence and actual decisions determine what needs attention in your business. Binder organizes what you know and helps you recognize what still needs attention.
Across Binder Intelligence
One issue, different perspectives.
The same development can matter to managers, insurers, boards and institutions. Explore the related material each publication has independently verified.
The article is a starting point, not a legal strategy.
Binder brings the documents, correspondence and decisions surrounding a business issue into one Matter. When individual professional guidance is required, use an appropriately qualified lawyer.
See how Binder works →Source and further context Supreme Court of Canada, 2008 SCC 27 ↗
Intelligence Law publishes commentary and information, not individualized legal advice. Legal rules and court procedure vary by jurisdiction and circumstances.
Comments & questions
Join the discussion about this Canadian development. Comments are reviewed before publication; posting is for eligible Binder members.
Sign in with an eligible paid Binder membership to comment or ask a question.
Sign in to comment