The eggshell skull rule states that a defendant will be liable for the damages afflicted on a victim as-is, even if that victim had a pre-existing condition that made the injuries worse than they likely would have been for someone else. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court enforced the eggshell skull rule in a schoolroom injury case. Handling Inc. 890 F.2d 24: “The injurer takes his victim as he finds him and is therefore liable for the full extent of the injury even if unforeseeable ... even if ... (the plaintiff), because of a pre-existing injury sustains a much greater loss than the average victim would have.”. … It states that plaintiffs are not at fault for their condition, and defendants must take full responsibility for the injuries they cause. Havenaar v Havenaar [1982] 1 NSWLR 626 Malcolm v Broadhurst; Havenaar v Havenaar; Dulieu v White; Smith v Leech Brain ; Commonwealth of Australia v McLean; McColl v Dionisatos; Kavanagh v Akhtar; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission; Norris v Blake; Share this case by email Share this case. Eggshell skull rule is a principle of trots law that a defendant is liable for a plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional act. OCCUPATIONAL & FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY. In lawsuits filed by injury lawyers, this legal doctrine holds that a defendant’s liability will not be reduced simply because an injured plaintiff is more susceptible to injury than an average plaintiff. A tort is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. COLUMBIA CENTER FOR Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389 It states that a defendant’s liability will not be reduced just because the plaintiff is more susceptible to injuries. Although the kick would likely not have caused an injury in a healthy child, the injured boy, in this case, had a tibia infection and the kick led to the prevention of recovery and loss of full use of the boy’s leg. An injury lawyer can address specifics on physical and mental pre-existing conditions that warrant a lawsuit. It is differentiated from criminal wrongdoing which involves a breach of a duty owed to society, and also does not include breach of contract. Understanding The Eggshell Skull Rule The “eggshell skull rule” applies to all negligence and intentional tort cases. Eggshell Skull Rule This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from their tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. Haley v L.E.B. Like this case study. Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405 The distinction between a thin skull case and a crumbling skull case is that in the thin skull, the skull, although thinner than the average skull, is in a stable condition before the accident and, but for the accident, would have remained so. Generally speaking, tort law defines what is a legal injury and what is not. The Defendant's actions are viewed as merely an aggravating cause. Eggshell Skull Rule Primary tabs. McColl v Dionisatos [2002] NSWSC 276 Eggshell Skull Rule of Law in Personal Injury Cases If a tortfeasor (negligent party) inflicts injury on a victim and the ultimate harm is worse than what would normally be expected because the victim was more vulnerable due to some pre-existing injury, then the tortfeasor is still responsible for the whole harm suffered. It is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine that says the wrongdoer takes the victim in the condition he/she finds him. Malcolm v Broadhurst [1970] 3 All ER 508 The eggshell skull rule protects the rights of a person with a pre-existing condition that makes him/her more susceptible to injury than another person. A legal theory, companion to the thin skull rule, which limits a tort defendant’s exposure to a plaintiff’s injuries to the plaintiff’s condition at the time of the tort. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). A person may be held liable for another's injury caused by them. The defendant is liable for the additional damage but not the pre-existing damage. Refresh. It is a civil wrong arising from an act or failure to act, independently of any contract, for which an action for personal injury or property damages may be brought. This ruling established the eggshell skull rule in 1891. There is no allowance for an already weakened state of the injured party. The “eggshell skull rule” applies to all negligence and intentional tort cases. The Eggshell Skull Rule And How It Applies To Personal Injury The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine that says the wrongdoer takes the victim in the condition he/she finds him. Generally speaking, tort law defines what is a legal injury and what is not. Back to Torts Law - Lectures & Quizzes Eggshell Skull Rule. Student Law Notes is the perfect resource for Law Students on the go! Depending upon the circumstances, the degree of aggravation may range from very substantial to very slight. It may also take into account the family and cultural environment. In Rardin v. T & D Mach. The rule obtains its name from a common example used in law school. Doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. The term implie… If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics. The defendant is liable for the injuries caused, even if they are extreme, but need not compensate the plaintiff for any debilitating effects of the pre-existing condition, which the plaintiff would have experienced anyway. Listen to casenotes from legal cases from your University course from your computer, ipad or phone. The rule is applied in tort and criminal cases involving a plaintiff in a vulnerable, weakened state or suffering from a medical condition. This rule argues that the harm suffered by the victim was inevitable and the defendant's acts only had a minimal effect upon the already deteriorating circumstances. Kavanagh v Akhtar (1998) 45 NSWLR 588 This means a tort victim's compensation or damages are not discounted because of any pre-existing vulnerability. In the crumbling skull, the Defendant is not to be held responsible for the whole of the post-accident condition of the skull. [1965] AC 778 It states that a defendant’s liability will not be reduced just because the plaintiff is more susceptible to injuries. In 1996, in Athley v Leonati, the Supreme Court used these words to describe and distinguish the crumbling skull rule: The defendant need not put the plaintiff in a position better than his or her original position.