Eggshell skull
Encyclopedia
The eggshell skull rule (or thin skull rule or you take your victim as you find him rule of the common law) is a well established legal doctrine
used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law
.
or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant
must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue
(1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence
, and strict liability
cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser
's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.
The thin skull rule is not to be confused with the related crumbling skull rule in which the plaintiff suffers from a detrimental position (from a prior injury, for instance) pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort. In the "crumbling skull" rule, the prior condition is only to be considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new injury arising from the present tort - as a means of apportioning damages in such a way that the defendant would not be liable for placing the plaintiff in a better position than they were in prior to the present tort.
(US) In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney
. In that case, an 11 year-old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school
. It turned out that the 14 year-old had a unknown "microbial" condition that was irritated by the kick. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, and as it occurred during school and not on the playground
, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.
(US) In Benn v. Thomas, the appellate court determined that the eggshell rule should have been applied to a case in which a man had a heart attack and died after being bruised in the chest during a rear-end car accident.
For example, if A assaults B, and B is hauled away on a stretcher, where he is struck by lightning, even though A's actions had caused B to be at the place and time of the bolt of lightning, the Eggshell Skull rule does not apply.
Legal doctrine
A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. A doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows...
used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
.
The law
This rule holds one liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerabilityVulnerability
Vulnerability refer to the susceptibility of a person, group, society, sex or system to physical or emotional injury or attack. The term can also refer to a person who lets their guard down, leaving themselves open to censure or criticism...
or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if
- such damages were not reasonably foreseeable, or
- the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue
R v. Blaue
R v Blaue [1976] 61 Cr App R 271 is an English criminal law case in which the Court of Appeal decided that the refusal of a Jehovah's Witness to accept a blood transfusion after being stabbed did not constitute a novus actus interveniens for the purposes of legal causation.-Facts:The defendant...
(1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
, and strict liability
Strict liability
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability...
cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser
Trespasser
In the law of tort, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who commits the act of trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. Being present on land as a trespasser thereto creates liability in the trespasser, so long as the trespass is intentional...
's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.
The thin skull rule is not to be confused with the related crumbling skull rule in which the plaintiff suffers from a detrimental position (from a prior injury, for instance) pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort. In the "crumbling skull" rule, the prior condition is only to be considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new injury arising from the present tort - as a means of apportioning damages in such a way that the defendant would not be liable for placing the plaintiff in a better position than they were in prior to the present tort.
Case illustrations
(UK) In the case of Smith v. Leech Brain & Co., an employee in a factory was splashed with molten metal. The metal burned him on his lip, which happened to be premalignant tissue. He died three years later from cancer triggered by the injury. The judge held that as long as the initial injury was foreseeable, the defendant was liable for all the harm.(US) In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
State supreme court
In the United States, the state supreme court is the highest state court in the state court system ....
came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney
Vosburg v. Putney
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 , is a famous Wisconsin Supreme Court battery case, authored by Justice Harlow S. Orton, exemplifying the eggshell skull rule of United States tort law...
. In that case, an 11 year-old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school
School
A school is an institution designed for the teaching of students under the direction of teachers. Most countries have systems of formal education, which is commonly compulsory. In these systems, students progress through a series of schools...
. It turned out that the 14 year-old had a unknown "microbial" condition that was irritated by the kick. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, and as it occurred during school and not on the playground
Playground
A playground or play area is a place with a specific design for children be able to play there. It may be indoors but is typically outdoors...
, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.
(US) In Benn v. Thomas, the appellate court determined that the eggshell rule should have been applied to a case in which a man had a heart attack and died after being bruised in the chest during a rear-end car accident.
Exceptions
Intervening cause is typically an exception to the Eggshell Skull rule. If an injury is not immediate, but a separate situation agitates the injury, the tortfeasor is not liable.For example, if A assaults B, and B is hauled away on a stretcher, where he is struck by lightning, even though A's actions had caused B to be at the place and time of the bolt of lightning, the Eggshell Skull rule does not apply.