Content deleted Content added
→Example: Remove speculative example. |
m →Law: Typo fixing, replaced: Commonwelath → Commonwealth |
||
(11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
{{Primary sources|date=April 2021}}
}}
[[File:Egg-rmh.jpg|thumb
{{Tort law}}
▲[[File:Egg-rmh.jpg|thumb|left|200px|An eggshell is often used as a visual metaphor for the thin skull rule.]]
The '''eggshell rule''' (also '''thin skull rule''', '''papier-mâché-plaintiff rule''', or '''talem qualem rule''')<ref>{{Citation|last=Mann|first=Trischa|title=talem qualem rule|date=2015-04-23|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195518511.001.0001/acref-9780195518511-e-3597|work=Australian Law Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|language=en|doi=10.1093/acref/9780195518511.001.0001|isbn=978-0-19-551851-1|access-date=2020-04-22|archive-date=2020-05-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200518192003/https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195518511.001.0001/acref-9780195518511-e-3597|url-status=live}}</ref> is a well-established [[legal doctrine]] in [[common law]], used in some [[tort law]] systems,<ref>[http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1217.82-1714.html 708 F.2d 1217] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727213141/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1217.82-1714.html |date=2011-07-27 }}, citing Prosser, ''Handbook of the Law of Torts'' 261 (4th ed. 1971)</ref> with a similar doctrine applicable to [[criminal law]]. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
==Law==
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. due to a pre-existing [[vulnerability]] or [[medical condition]]).<ref name="Watts v Rake">{{cite AustLII|HCA|50|1960|litigants=Watts v Rake |
In criminal law, the general maxim is that the [[defendant]] must "take their victims as they find them", as echoed in the judgment of [[Frederick Lawton (judge)|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 an [[Breaking the chain|intervening act]].<ref>{{cite BAILII |year= 1975 |court=EWCA | division=Crim |num=3 |litigants=R v Blaue |parallelcite=[1975] 1 [[Weekly Law Reports|WLR]] 1411 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>
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 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.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Athey v Leonati |year=1996 |court=SCC |num=83 |format=|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, (1996), 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235 |date= |courtname=auto |juris=}}.</ref>
==Example==
In an example, a person who has [[osteogenesis imperfecta]] (
==American cases==
In 1891, the [[State supreme court|Wisconsin Supreme Court]] came to a similar result in ''[[Vosburg v. Putney]]''.<ref>''[[Vosburg v. Putney]]'' 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis., 1891) ([[Reversal (law)|reversed]] and [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]]ed for a new trial on other grounds).</ref> In that case, a boy kicked another from across the aisle in the classroom. It turned out that the victim had an unknown microbial condition that was irritated, and resulted in him entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury. Nevertheless, the court found that the kicking was [[Law|unlawful]] because it violated the "order and decorum of the classroom
In the 1962 English case of ''[[Smith v Leech Brain & Co]]'',<ref>''[[Smith v Leech Brain & Co]]'' [1962] 2 [[Queens Bench Law Reports|QB]] 405.</ref> 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.▼
▲In 1891, the [[State supreme court|Wisconsin Supreme Court]] came to a similar result in ''[[Vosburg v. Putney]]''.<ref>''[[Vosburg v. Putney]]'' 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis., 1891) ([[Reversal (law)|reversed]] and [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]]ed for a new trial on other grounds).</ref> In that case, a boy kicked another from across the aisle in the classroom. It turned out that the victim had an unknown microbial condition that was irritated, and resulted in him entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury. Nevertheless, the court found that the kicking was [[Law|unlawful]] because it violated the "order and decorum of the classroom", and the perpetrator was therefore fully liable for the injury.
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.<ref>512 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa, 1994)</ref>
==Australian cases==
In the Australian case of ''Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW'',<ref name="Nader"/> the plaintiff was a 10
In the Australian case of ''[[Kavanagh v Akhtar]]'',<ref name="Kavanagh v Akhtar"/> the court held the tortfeasor should take into account the plaintiff's family and cultural setting. Equality before the law puts a heavy onus on the person who would argue that the "unusual" reaction of an injured plaintiff should be disregarded because a minority religious or cultural situation may not have been foreseeable.
==British cases==
▲In the 1962 English case of ''[[Smith v Leech Brain & Co]]'',<ref>''[[Smith v Leech Brain & Co]]'' [1962] 2 [[Queens Bench Law Reports|QB]] 405.</ref> 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.
==Exceptions==
[[causation (law)#Intervening cause|Intervening cause]] is typically an exception to the eggshell skull rule. If an injury is not immediate, but a separate situation agitates the injury (such as the injured party being involved in a vehicular collision while being taken to a hospital), the tortfeasor is not liable under common law in Australia (see ''Haber v Walker'',<ref name="Haber v Walker">{{cite AustLII|VicRp|51|1963|litigants=Haber v Walker |parallelcite=[1963] [[Victorian Reports|VR]] 339 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> and ''Mahoney v Kruschich Demolitions''<ref name="Mahoney v Kruschich">{{cite AustLII|HCA|37|1985|litigants=Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1985) 156 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 522 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>). In ''Haber v Walker'' it was held that a plaintiff will not be liable for a novus actus interveniens (intervening act) if the chain of causation was broken by a voluntary, human act or, an independent event, which in conjunction with the wrongful act, was so unlikely as to be termed a coincidence.<ref name="Haber v Walker"/> In ''Mahoney v Kruschich Demolitions'' the plaintiff, Glogovic, was injured while working on the demolition of a power house for the respondent. While being treated for his injuries, his injuries were exacerbated by the negligent medical treatment of the appellant, Mahony. It was held that there was no novus actus as a result of medical treatment of injuries caused by the
==References==
|