Civil Case Study: Analysis of Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. 2008

This case study analyzes the civil case of Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. (2008). The case revolves around Mr. Mustapha's claim of psychiatric illness resulting from finding a dead fly in a sealed bottle of Culligan water. The analysis addresses key legal questions: whether Culligan's negligence caused Mustapha's illness, the adequacy of Culligan's defense based on safety standards, and the foreseeability of psychiatric illness. The analysis also examines the Supreme Court's decision, which focused on foreseeability. The provided solution argues that Culligan breached its duty of care, and that the Supreme Court's decision was unjust. The case study highlights the importance of duty of care, negligence, and the concept of reasonable foreseeability in determining liability for psychological harm. The document concludes with a personal opinion on whether justice was served.

Running Head: MUSTAPHA V. CULLIGAN OF CANADA LTD., 2008.
Civil case study
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

MUSTAPHA V. CULLIGAN OF CANADA LTD., 2008. 2
Was Mustapha’s psychiatric illness as a result of his Middle Eastern cultural sensitivities
and their high level of hygiene and cleanliness maintained in their home or was it as a
result of Culligan’s negligence?
The conclusion made by the trial judge that the litigator’s psychiatric illness was caused
by his Middle Eastern cultural sensitivities and the high level of hygiene and cleanliness in their
home stands unsupported. In a negligence claim, it is important to know whether the defendant’s
contravention really caused the litigator’s harm, in law and in fact. The evidence presented
before the trial judge clearly shows that Culligan’s irresponsibility and breach of its duty of care
towards its customer caused Mr. Mustapha’s psychiatric illness. When it comes to the
defendant’s contravention causing the litigator harm in law, a question arises as to whether it
really caused harm or whether it is too remote to necessitate recovery. In conclusion, Mr.
Mustapha’s psychiatric illness was in a great way caused by Culligan’s breach of its duty of care.
Was the evidence presented by Culligan at trial about the safety standards at its plant
make an adequate defense against the negligence claim?
The evidence presented by Culligan was not an adequate defense against the litigator’s
claim. A question arises as to whether the defendant’s behavior contravened the standard of care.
When a defendant’s behavior causes an unreasonable risk of harm, then it is considered to be
negligent. The defendant, Culligan ltd., contravened the standard of care by providing Mr.
Mustapha with contaminated water, as found out by the trial judge. Culligan was under a
responsibility to take optimal and reasonable care, in order to ensure that the water would not be
contaminated by any foreign element.

MUSTAPHA V. CULLIGAN OF CANADA LTD., 2008. 3
Was the fact that Mr. Mustapha would sustain a psychiatric illness after seeing a fly in the
bottled water foreseeable to Culligan?
The fact that Mr. Mustapha would sustain a psychiatric illness was not foreseeable to
Culligan. Any harm which has occurred or has ever occurred indicates a possible risk. The
possibility of a risk does not meaningfully bring to term the application of reasonable
foreseeability. Relevant sources describe reasonable foreseeability of a risk as a ‘real risk.’ i.e., a
risk that would occur in the mind of a man who is reasonable, and one which would not be
ignored or swept aside as far-fetched. Therefore, it had not occurred to Culligan that the
possibility of a risk from consumption of their bottled water by their customer would cause a
psychiatric illness.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the fact that Mr. Mustapha’s injuries and
damages faced were not foreseeable by Culligan. The decision on the failure to reinstate his
damages award was reasonably unjust. Generally, a complainant who suffers personal harm is
said to have suffered damage, i.e., psychological and personal injury. However, relevant sources
indicate that psychological disturbances that develop to personal injury are not similar to
psychological illnesses. According to the law, personal injury means very serious illnesses. The
law does not take into regard disturbances such as upset, anxiety, disgust or other mental
disturbances that are not termed as serious injuries.