by John Doe 116 Replies latest jw friends
You did not answer my point about phychological harm not being caused by pubic hair in food but was already pre-existing and caused by child molestor not restaurant.
Yes, but then you have the "but for" test regarding personal injury. But for the defendant's actions, would the person have been injured. In this case, the answer is conclusively no. If the woman had not seen pubes in her food, she would not have suffered an emotionally traumatic flashback.
I agree with you in that instance Cog, the psychological damage was already done by the molester and the restaurant shouldn't have to pay for something that someone else caused.
Ok, John Doe I will change the circumstances slightly since you seem to be backing the plaintiff in the pubic hair case and you used the "but for".
What if a an XJW went to a restaurant and saw a watchtower laying around and they felt traumatized. Remember substitute pubic hair for watchtower.
What do you think in this instance, and if you disagree then why?
For one thing, a Watchtower does not violate any health code guidelines.
Sure, but in the above instance, health code violations were not the issue, the issue was the psychological damge that had been previously done to the victim from being molested. If the person were going at the case with that angle, then the health code violation would only be secondary.
dude, that dude you called a moron this morning is telling on you.
Not you Junction. You were asleep this morning. I was Talking to my second favorite home depot employee.
If the woman had not seen pubes in her food, she would not have suffered an emotionally traumatic flashback.
That is an assumption that again, is impossible to prove! She could have gone into washroom, seen pubic hair on toilet or sink or floor, and had emotionally traumatic flashback there.
The legal test is: what is the reaction a "reasonable" person would have to same situation. It is not: what is the reaction a person with post traumatic stress syndrom would have. For instance, flashbacks are often triggered by scent of shampoo or cologne that abuser wore. Should woman be able to sue manager of restaurant if she smells same cologne he is wearing or they use same soap in bathroom as her abuser used and she has flashback? Of course not, it is not reaction a reasonable person would have. It is reaction of person with psychiatric illness. Is society expected to alter realty and entire world to sensitivites of few mentally ill? It is impossible and unreasonable.
even the cleanest eating establishments are not immune to having an occasional hair in food.
In England the test for reasonableness goes by the quaint old saying , "what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus think?"
Regards David
