Content deleted Content added
→Case illustrations: add american and divide by countries Tag: Reverted |
m →Law: Typo fixing, replaced: Commonwelath → Commonwealth |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 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 |parallelcite=(1960) 108 [[
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>
Line 27 ⟶ 26:
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==
|