Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
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,[1] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. It increases the liability of a person who may commit a tort against another, from results arising out of those tortious acts. The Eggshell Skull Rule provides that a defendant takes a plaintiff as he finds him and must pay damages accordingly. In other words, a defendant is liable for unexpected injuries resulting from his intentional or negligent conduct. The Eggshell Skull Rule usually applies to plaintiffs who are unusually susceptible to certain injuries.
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 vulnerability 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 the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
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 defendant or 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.
(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 came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney.[4] In that case, a boy threw a small kick at 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 unlawful because it violated the "order and decorum of the classroom", and the perpetrator was therefore fully 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.
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 Matt assaults Neal, and Neal is hauled away on a stretcher, where he is struck by lightning, even though Matt's actions had caused Neal to be at the place and time of the bolt of lightning, the rule does not apply.
Examples
1) Two boys, Pete and Victor, were sitting across from each other in their classroom at school. Pete kicked Victor on his shin so lightly that Victor did not immediately feel it. However, minutes later Victor was crying out in pain due to the injury. Over the next week, the wound swelled and surgery was performed on Victor's shin. The surgeons found that Victor's shin bone was damaged from an earlier sledding accident and the kick that Pete delivered to Victor's shin exacerbated the injury, causing bone degradation and irreparable harm to the leg. Due to these events, Victor would never use the leg again.
Victor sued Pete for the damages he incurred. The eggshell skull rule says that a tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him. Damages are not mitigated because the victim is more susceptible to injury than an average person. Therefore, the court ruled against Pete for the full amount of damages incurred by Victor even though the kick would not have normally caused the extent of injury he sustained.
2) Suppose that a mugger approaches a jogger on a street, hoping to steal the jogger's wallet. In order to disable the jogger, the mugger strikes him on the head. Unbeknownst to the mugger, the jogger suffers from a rare medical condition that has made his skull as thin and fragile as an eggshell. Therefore, the mugger's assault kills the jogger. Under the "Eggshell Skull Rule," the mugger is liable for the death of the jogger, even though the jogger's death was unintended and unexpected.
3) A bank robber walks into a bank and points a gun at a cashier. The cashier immediately has a heart attack and dies. After the cashier's death, the robber learns that she suffered from a heart condition. The family of the cashier files a wrongful death action against the robber. The robber will probably be liable for the cashier's death, even though her death was unexpected.
The Problem in General and the Particular Problem of the Eggshell Skull Rule
That there is confusion in the law relating to mental harm is hardly open to question. Jurisdictions are divided in their approaches to the problem. The more conservative hold to the older restrictive rules, and those attempting to do away with them (the "moderns") have sought to bring mental harm into line with physical impairments. Within these two broad
groups, there are other divisions, as courts attempt to modify and improve their rules relating to this matter. But the great remaining question, and it applies in both camps, relates to the "eggshell skull" rule. This rule provides that the defendant takes the plaintiff. This rule is well established as to purely physical harms. For example, one who negligently injures someone with serious heart disease is responsible for that person's cardiac death even if the same force would hardly have inconvenienced a normal person. With regard to mental harms, the status of the eggshell skull rule is far from clear. This is so even in jurisdictions that have sought to treat mental and physical harms in the same manner. Even one as perceptive and learned as Chief Judge Richard Posner, interpreting Wisconsin law, seemed to slide over the problem when he declared.