If the answer was yes, it would be irrelevant that the extent of the damage was unforeseeable because the plaintiff had special sensitivities - the rule founded in other nervous shock cases that the plaintiff should be of reasonable fortitude was found to be irrelevant.
If the answer was affirmative, it would be inconsequential that the extent of the harm was unpredictable due to the plaintiff's exceptional sensitivities - the rule established in other nervous shock cases that the plaintiff should possess reasonable fortitude was deemed irrelevant.