Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[snoopy369]

Well, 'thin skull' is one thing, but if the anxiety is not a disorder but simply a symptom of the OCD, that's different, isn't it? (I'm also arguing, I suppose, that the actual 'serious injury' is the OCD itself, which was not caused by the company, but by his genetics; ie, all of the after-the-fact depression etc. was more than likely not related to the fly, it was going to happen anyway.)

Clearly the SC is finding this, one way or the other, yes? (That a normal person wouldn't be bothered by this, so it's not reasonable to hold them liable for it.)

[Wezil]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Well, 'thin skull' is one thing, but if the anxiety is not a disorder but simply a symptom of the OCD, that's different, isn't it?

Clearly the SC is finding this, one way or the other, yes? (That a normal person wouldn't be bothered by this, so it's not reasonable to hold them liable for it.)

I think legally fly guy had a decent argument but for the reasons I mentioned earlier it was a precedent the Court simply was not willing to set. I have yet to read the decision but I am told it is unusually short.

The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from his or her activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor or assailant who did not know of that condition were to hit that person on the head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the responsible party would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even though they were not foreseeable. The general maxim is that defendants must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lawton LJ in the criminal case of R v. Blaue.

The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.

The case of Smith v. Leech Brain & Co., [1962] 2 QB 405, illustrated this rule. An employee in a factory was splashed with molten metal, as a result of the burn he developed cancer and died. The defence argued that he may have had a pre-existing disposition to cancer. However, the judges dismissed this on account that such circumstances were irrelevant.

In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis., 1891) (reversed and remanded for a new trial on other grounds). In that case, an 11 year old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school. It turned out that the 14 year-old was recovering from a previous injury. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, and as it occurred during school and not on the playground, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes but there is the legal principle of people being "as you find them".

I was just about to say that. It's the so-called "thin skull" doctrine.

So I read this case, it revolves areound the question of to whom Culligan's duty runs. That is, if a customer drank the fly, then there's liablity. But Culligan owes no duty to others (including employees) who may suffer emotional injuries from seeing flies in their water.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
So I read this case, it revolves areound the question of to whom Culligan's duty runs. That is, if a customer drank the fly, then there's liablity. But Culligan owes no duty to others (including employees) who may suffer emotional injuries from seeing flies in their water.

I think you got it.


It's important to note that at no stage did the court form the belief that this guy was "faking". They accept he was truly traumatized by the event.

I suspect this area of law will be revisited as the public awareness/acceptance/knowledge of mental health issues continues to increase. Mental illness is not seen in the same way today as it was 20 years ago.

[snoopy369]

Interesting. I understand the basic point of that doctrine, but I think there should be some realism taken into account... and they have to also separately prove that there is a tort committed, right, and that the tort led to the injury? I'd think it would not necessarily be cut and dried that the fly in the water led to any of this.

I mean, if a guy has terminal cancer, and then drinks water with a fly in it, is he now able to sue the water company for his cancer??

That's my point... that the fly did not cause any harm itself, it simply brought to the forefront harm that existed already; so perhaps they could be liable for the immediate consequences (like, a day's lost wages if he couldn't go into work) but not for the long-term consequences that was the underlying disease he already had.

I'm a bit curious also, to be honest, about the cancer patient you mention above. Did they show (successfully) a link between the molten metal and cancer? I'd think (again) that if the argument was, "He had cancer, then he got metal on him, so we're not responsible for the cancer, just the metal," that should be supported in law. I'm assuming, thus, that there must have been evidence the metal caused the cancer...

[Wezil]

Disclaimer - I don't do tort law...

Originally posted by snoopy369
Interesting. I understand the basic point of that doctrine, but I think there should be some realism taken into account... and they have to also separately prove that there is a tort committed, right, and that the tort led to the injury? I'd think it would not necessarily be cut and dried that the fly in the water led to any of this.

Yes, the tort must lead to an injury. In this case fly guy argued he was "injured" mentally by the sight of the fly in his water. The Court ruled this was too remote. Yes, if he had actually eaten the fly his position would have been much stronger.

I mean, if a guy has terminal cancer, and then drinks water with a fly in it, is he now able to sue the water company for his cancer??

No, b/c the fly did not cause his cancer.

That's my point... that the fly did not cause any harm itself, it simply brought to the forefront harm that existed already; so perhaps they could be liable for the immediate consequences (like, a day's lost wages if he couldn't go into work) but not for the long-term consequences that was the underlying disease he already had.

You talk about the pre-existing condition (like you I'm presuming mental illness) as if it was already affecting his ability to carry on life and that simply was not the case. IIRC he was a successful business owner (hair salon?) up until the event. So I agree the fly only exacerbated a condition that was already there but you take people as you find them...

I'm a bit curious also, to be honest, about the cancer patient you mention above. Did they show (successfully) a link between the molten metal and cancer? I'd think (again) that if the argument was, "He had cancer, then he got metal on him, so we're not responsible for the cancer, just the metal," that should be supported in law. I'm assuming, thus, that there must have been evidence the metal caused the cancer...

I don't know the case and am not at work so I can't look it up. I presume there was such evidence as "The defence argued that he may have had a pre-existing disposition to cancer" was ruled irrelevant.

[UnOrthOdOx]

So if you see a fly, drink it before suing and you're golden.

I think my grasshopper case has merit then.

Except it was years ago... And all I did was poke around and make sure no more were in there.

[Wezil]

Your grasshopper case has merit wrt to you being in a position to sue (if you can show harm of course). It does not have merit wrt the case at hand. Our guy didn't actually discover the texture of the fly.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
So if you see a fly, drink it before suing and you're golden.

I think my grasshopper case has merit then.

Except it was years ago... And all I did was poke around and make sure no more were in there.

You're not so much golden as pewter. Willingly encountering an injury -- i.e. a claim based on proposely drinking the fly -- would be barred, probably as a "failure to mitigate," and maybe also as assumption of the risk and/or comparative fault.

Your grasshopper case is probably also doomed. Calif has a 2-year statute of limitations for negligence; your jurisdiction probably has something similar. Plus, you are going to have a hard time proving that you suffered sufficient injuries to get you big buck.

[UnOrthOdOx]

That's why you don't "discover" the fly till it's wriggling down your throat.

I'm quite confident I could find another grasshopper. Since the time I accidentally ate the one I've seen a few, as I check the bags and wash the stuff myself prior to making the salads I take for lunch now.

I'll just have to "develope" a phobia next time.

One could conceivably catch a grasshopper to 'discover' as well...though "discovering" the finger didn't quite work out for the lady with the chili...and it would be difficult to replicate that mushy brown consistancy of the ones I actually find...

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The guy is a Lebanese immigrant but can't handle the sight of a fly in some water?

It's a shame he wasn't of European descent or I'd make the "pretty fly for a white guy" pun.