Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd.

Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd.

Although duty, breach and factual causation were established, the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was too remote in law because it was not reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer serious psychiatric injury from seeing dead flies in a sealed bottled water; therefore no recoverable negligence or contract damages for that injury.

Citation
2008 SCC 27
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Waddah Mustapha (a.k.a. Martin Mustapha); Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Culligan of Canada Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence, Psychiatric Injury) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Remoteness, Psychiatric Injury, Breach of Contract, Causation, Objective Standard (ordinary Fortitude)
Source Language
English
Torts Contract Negligence Duty of Care Foreseeability Remoteness Psychiatric Injury Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waddah Mustapha (a.k.a. Martin Mustapha)

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Culligan of Canada Ltd.

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence, Psychiatric Injury) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant owed a duty of care to ultimate consumer
  2. 2 Whether defendant breached the standard of care by supplying contaminated bottled water
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff sustained compensable psychiatric injury

Ratio Decidendi

Although duty, breach and factual causation were established, the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was too remote in law because it was not reasonably foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer serious psychiatric injury from seeing dead flies in a sealed bottled water; therefore no recoverable negligence or contract damages for that injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed without costs