Comments on: Canadian loses bottled-fly-in-water case

By: Cook Barela

Cook Barela — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:36:26 +0000

Fly in a bottle… humm, that would make a good title for a book or movie…

By: matt

matt — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:27:28 +0000

im sorry but if this affects you as much as it did him (presuming hes not lying of course) you should be locked in a mental hospital

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:08:38 +0000

Bill, I haven’t been in law school for a while, but I think the Eggshell Skull rule is for physical idiosyncracies/vulnerabilities which result in more damage than the average bear would suffer, not mental/emotional idiosyncracies/vulnerabilities.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:37:01 +0000

How does this ruling fit with the common law Eggshell Skull Rule that you take the victim as you find him? Rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that under the common law rule Mustapha should have won.

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:14:56 +0000

E-Bell:

He might not be able to afford it but his attorney should!

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:37:12 +0000

The kind of folks who file this kind of suit tend to be less than wealthy. I would expect that Mustapha – a hairdresser – can’t afford to pay the $30,000.

So, the company still loses.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:53:32 +0000

In a clear reversal of punditry, I submit that this case IS about the money…$30,000 of which will exit Mr. Mustapha’s coffers. Will they allow him some kind of payment plan?

By: Patrick Saunders

Patrick Saunders — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:44:23 +0000

There’s nothing like a $30k sting to discourage similar wasteful lawsuits. This should happen a lot more often.

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Fri, 23 May 2008 05:05:43 +0000

Now that the case is closed, perhaps Mr Mustapha in the name of science could tell us how he got the fly into the bottle?

By: Update: C$341K trauma from seeing bottled fly

Update: C$341K trauma from seeing bottled fly — Fri, 23 May 2008 04:01:38 +0000

[…] Updating our Apr. 26, 2005 entry, from Canada: “A Windsor, Ont., man lost out on a $341,775 court judgment yesterday, when the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a bottling company should not have been held liable for triggering a phobia of flies that altered his personality and killed his sex life.” No one in the Mustapha family consumed the fly, or any of the water that had come into contact with it, but Waddah (Martin) Mustapha said the unsettling sight had precipitated a disabling psychological aversion. The Ontario court — applying Canada’s costs-follow-the-event principle — assessed $30,000 in costs against Mustapha. (Kirk Makin, “Appeal court rules against man haunted by fly in water bottle”, Globe and Mail, Dec. 16; opinion in Mustapha and Culligan of Canada (PDF)). More: Supreme Court of Canada rules against Mustapha (May 23, 2008) […]