Eggshell Rule Law

An intermediate cause is an event that occurs after the initial neglect and breaks the causal chain. An intervening cause can be an action of another person or an action of nature. The law applies the cause of interference in the same way as the eggshell skull rule. However, if an intervening event causes a new injury that further aggravates the victim`s initial injury, it can become difficult to prove what damage after that event is due to the injury that formed the basis of your claim. A judge or jury may determine that this damage was unforeseeable. It can also be difficult to obtain medical evidence or testimonials from doctors that prove the scope of your claim. Therefore, the original defendant may not be liable for any additional harm caused to the victim. In Darden v. In the City of Fort Worth, the court found that the District Court erred in not applying the eggshell skull rule and that “a victim takes his victim as he finds him” to Darden`s claim. Darden`s pre-existing conditions increased his risk of dying during combat, and in this way, they contributed to his death. The evidence suggested that Darden would not have suffered a heart attack and would have died had he not been wiretapped, the plaintiff correctly demonstrated that the use of force was the direct and sole cause of Darden`s death. [3] Darden`s lawyer was able to prove that the aggrieved party must take the victim as they find it. If your personal injury case goes to court, the judge or jury will base their decision on the evidence and arguments of the lawyers.

The Texas jury`s charges, which help educate juries about our laws and rules, include instructions on the eggshell skull doctrine. The rule of the skull of the eggshell should not be confused with the rule of the skull in ruins. Although the doctrine of the eggshell skull can be easily applied to his face, two cases complicate the application of this doctrine. Intermediate causes and comparative neglect represent an obstacle that makes the application of the eggshell skull doctrine a little more complicated. The purpose of the tort is to restore the victim party to the state in which he was if the crime had not taken place. In this sense, the application of this doctrine to cases of bodily injury ensures that the injured party or persons are entitled to full compensation for all damages resulting directly from a defendant`s tort. It also means whether any or all of the injuries could not have occurred without the applicant`s already existing physical condition, illness or susceptibility to harm. [2] This extra protection for those who qualify for eggshell teaching is a great relief. The additional compensation gives victims the opportunity to regain their quality of life before the accident, regardless of their pre-existing state of health.

However, this damage is not unlimited. In fact, the jury receives a specific instruction as follows: Sometimes it is relatively easy to prove that a car accident has worsened your condition. Let`s go back to our accident victim with fragile bone syndrome. The impact of the collision clearly caused their fractures. However, most cases of eggshell skulls are darker and require information from medical experts. Although an aggrieved party is liable for damage caused to an eggshell plaintiff, the law essentially requires compensation only to the extent that an already existing condition has worsened. For example, if a plaintiff had a medical condition on his back that required surgery on his back in 5 years, but that plaintiff was involved in an accident that required immediate surgery, the jury would have to pay 5 years in damages and not for the plaintiff`s life. The doctrine is applied in all areas of tort – intentional tort, negligence and strict liability – as well as in criminal law. No physical contact with the victim is required – if the illegal presence of an intruder on the victim`s property frightens the victim to such an extent that he suffers a fatal heart attack, the intruder is liable for the damage resulting from his original crime. [Citation needed] The basis of this rule is mainly based on political reasons.

Courts do not want the accused or defendant to rely on the victim`s own vulnerability to avoid liability. If the eggshell doctrine is used in bodily injury disputes, the defendant must take the victim as is, meaning that all pre-existing injuries and health conditions must be included. A victim`s ability to receive compensation is not diminished by an indebted party for the full extent of the damage, even if the victim had a condition that placed him or her at an unusually high risk. The intermediate cause is usually an exception to the eggshell skull rule. If an injury does not occur immediately, but a separate situation causes the injury (for example, if the injured party is involved in a vehicle collision while being taken to hospital), the injured party is not liable under customary law in Australia (see Haber v. Walker[11] and Mahoney v Kruschich Demolitions[12]). In Haber v. Walker, it has been held that a plaintiff is not liable for a novus actus interveniens (act of intervention) when the chain of causality has been broken by a voluntary and humane act or an independent event that, in relation to the unlawful act, was so unlikely that it could be characterized as a coincidence. [11] In Mahoney v. Kruschich Demolitions, applicant Glogovic was injured while working on the demolition of a power plant for the respondent.

While he was being treated for his injuries, his injuries were aggravated by the negligent medical treatment of complainant Mahony. It was concluded that there were no novus actus as a result of medical treatment of injuries caused by the defendant`s negligence, unless such treatment was inexcusably wrong or completely outside the limits of what a reputable physician might prescribe. [12] In Benn v. Thomas, the Court of Appeal ruled that the eggshell rule should have been applied to a case where a man suffered a heart attack and died after being injured in the chest in a car accident. [10] While the eggshell applicant is a person who suffers from some kind of physical difference that makes him or her more likely to suffer injury, there is also the issue of an applicant with a pre-existing condition. While it is generally accepted that a defendant is only liable for injury or damage caused by his or her negligent conduct, it is also recognized that a defendant is liable for all damages resulting from the aggravation of a pre-existing injury or condition. For example, if a plaintiff who was involved in a car accident has ever suffered a rotator cuff tear, the defendant would be liable for all injuries resulting from the accident, but not for injuries he or she allegedly suffered as a result of a pre-existing condition. This, of course, can lead to complex cases, especially if the claimant has already recovered from previous injuries. In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court applied the eggshell skull rule in a classroom violation case.