I dunno, this sounds like a pretty clear case of duty (water without flies in it), breach (water with a fly in it), causation both but for and proximate (seeing the tainted water lead to the harm), and harm (he's now stressed about water and life in general). Admittedly, no reasonable person would think that a fly in a water jug would cause all that harm, but hey, there's the eggshell plaintiff rule! Some distress at seeing the fly in there is reasonably foreseeable, surely.
Drum, care to weigh in?
