analysis of eggshell skull theory PDF

Preview

Summary

The assignment explains egg shell skull theory in law of torts...

Description

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................2 EXPLANATION OF THE RULE..................................................................................................................2 ORIGIN OF THE THEORY.........................................................................................................................3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY............................................................................................................3

Other Authorities ‘Eggshell skull Rule Law and Legal Definition’ accessed 15 September 2019.............................................................................................................................2, 3 Gresham v. Petro Stopping Centers [2011] LP, NO. 3:09-cv-00034-RCJ-VPC[2011] WL 1748569...........2

1

ANALYSIS OF EGG-SHELL SKULL THEORY (By- Aaina Mittal)

INTRODUCTION Eggshell Skull rule is a principle of torts law which states that the defendant is liable for a plaintiff’s unforeseeable & uncommon reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional act.1The theory states that just because the victim suffered from some vulnerable situation due to which he suffered more damages than a ordinary person would have suffered, this does not excuses the tortfeasor from the liability of paying damages. The eggshell skull rule is neatly summarised by the statement ‘you take your victim as you find them’.2 In this theory we are going to deal with the complete analysis of the theory with its development over the years. We are going to deal with how the scope of this theory widened. While initially only physical injury was taken into consideration, now emotional, mental, psychological injuries are also taken into consideration. We are going to deal with the origin of the rule, its evolution and the leading cases based on egg-shell skull theory. In the study we are also going to deal with how the theory began to apply in criminal law. In today’s fast changing world where the rate of crimes are increasing day by day and the criminals or the tortfeasors take the defence that the victim is himself responsible for the incident which happened with him, the egg-shell skull rule favours the victim and helps him to get the justice. Thus, the egg-shell skull rule is relevant in law of torts.

EXPLANATION OF THE RULE Let us explain the theory through an illustration. A customer slips and falls in a store due to which he suffered a rare fracture on his femur and he sues the store for negligence. 3 Although the store admits its negligence but the store refuses to be liable for the unforeseeable injury of the customer and the store gave the evidence to prove that customer could have prevented the injury.4The evidence showed that a treatable disease weakened his bones due to lack of diagnosis.5 Court however, rejected this argument stating that “defendants take plaintiff as they find them”.6

1 ‘Eggshell skull Rule Law and Legal Definition’ < https://definitions.uslegal.com > accessed 15 September 2019 2 Prakhar Mittal, ‘Application of egg-shell rule in criminal law’ 3 Gresham v. Petro Stopping Centers [2011] LP, NO. 3:09-cv-00034-RCJ-VPC[2011] WL 1748569 4 Gresham v. Petro Stopping Centers [2011] LP, NO. 3:09-cv-00034-RCJ-VPC[2011] WL 1748569 5 ‘Health Guide: Osteoporosis’(N.Y. Times) accessed 15 September 2019 6 Vidrine v Sentry Indem. Co.[1977] 341 So. 2d 558,563 (La. Ct. App. 1977)

2

While giving the judgement the court relied on eggshell plaintiff rule “the principle that the defendant is liable for a plaintiff’s unforeseeable & uncommon reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional act”.7 The rule states that despite the victim is suffering from some extraordinary situation which led to the more damages to the victim then the ordinary person would have suffered in the similar situation, the defendant is liable to pay the damages. Thus, while applying this theory the defendant always has to pay more damages due to the extraordinary situation of the victim.

ORIGIN OF THE THEORY The origin of the theory can be traced back to the nineteenth century case law when the American and English courts began imposing liability on the defendants for the full extent of damages caused to physically vulnerable plaintiffs.8 Vosburg v. Putney, 1891 led to the origin of eggshell skull theory.9 In this case the defendant kicked the plaintiff in the classroom unknowingly that the plaintiff had met with an accident a month ago which injured his legs and this led to the severe harm to the plaintiff. The court found Putney liable though he had no intention to injure the plaintiff nor was he aware of his physical injury. The court held that whether the injury could have been forseen or not, the wrongdoer is liable for all the injuries arising out of his/her act. Following the judgement, other courts also started applying similar rule in the cases. Finally the term “thin skull” plaintiff came into being in 1901, when an English court decided Dulieu v. White & Sons.10 In this case a horse van, driven by a negligent driver crashed into the pub due to which a pregnant woman working behind the bar suffered a severe shock. Due to the shock, woman fell ill and had to undergo a premature delivery. The woman was awarded damages by the court. The court held that the defendant cannot take the defence that the victim would have suffered less injury did not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY The eggshell plaintiff rule soon became a doctrine which was used by the courts to give damages in cases where the victim suffered from pre-existing physical condition. The theory mainly applied in four situations. Firstly, if a latent condition ailing plaintiff is unearthed by the defendant. For example, in Reed v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.11, as the plaintiff crossed the defendant’s railway track his truck hit an exposed replacement rail, aggravating an unknown disk condition which was pre-existing. Second, if the pre-existing condition of the plaintiff that had been suppressed through treatment re-activates due to the negligence of the 7 ‘Eggshell skull Rule Law and Legal Definition’ < https://definitions.uslegal.com > accessed 15 September 2019 8 See Infra Part 2.A. 9 Vosburg v Putney[1891] 10 Dulieu v White & Sons[1901] 2 K.B. 669 at 679 (Eng.) 11 Reed v Union Pacific Railroad Co.[1999] 185 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1983)

3

defendant. Third, if known pre-existing conditions that haven’t received medical attention is aggravated by the defendant. Fourth, when the defendant causes injury to the victim which accelerates the loss of life or an inevitable disability even if the injury would have occurred in the absence of any such act by the defendant. Some other applications of egg-shell skull rule include the following. First, the injuries which do not manifest at the time of negligence by the tortfeasor. Second, in order to apply egg-shell skull rule the court must prove that defendant breached a duty owed to him and this breach led to the harm to the plaintiff. Third, even if the injury is caused due to plaintiff’s own vulnerability the defendant is liable. Some scholars view the eggshell plaintiff rule "as an extension of the foreseeability test, which does not require the extent of the injury to be foreseeable, only the type". 12 Others view egg-shell liability as an outright exception to rules requiring forseeability.13 In recent years, the application of egg-shell plaintiff rule has been extended to psychological and economic injuries. When it comes to psychological harm, plaintiffs in most jurisdictions may now invoke the eggshell plaintiff rule to recover for physical and emotional harms resulting from pre-existing psychological conditions.14 Courts have also employed eggshell plaintiffrule to impose liability for economic harm resulting from unforeseen or unknowable damage to property.15

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE The egg-shell skull rule does not apply in all cases. For instance, an injured individual going to the hostipal by an ambulance and the ambulance met with an accident due to which the victim suffered more injuries. In this case, the original culprit will not be liable for the new injuries. Similarly, when a negligent doctor treats the injured the hospital takes the liability for it and the original offender only takes the liability for the initial injuries and not for the new injuries.

12 John L. Diamond ET AL., Understanding Torts (2000) 221 13 John L. Diamond, Cases and Materials on Torts (2d ed. 2008) 269-70 14 Aaron D. Twerski & James A. Henderson, JR., Torts: Cases and Materials (2d ed. 2008) 258 15 In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., [1921] 3 K.B. 560 (Eng.)

4

LIMITATIONS The egg-shell skull theory has various limitations and for this the theory has been criticized several times. 1. Though psychological and economic conditions have been taken into the arena of egg-shell skull rule but these conditions have not been redressed properly by the courts. 2. It is not possible to consider all the conditions whether physical, psychological or economical while awarding damages. 3. It is not possible to limit the recovery to mental harm that an ordinary person would sustain. 4. It conflicts the principle that the person should be liable only for the foreseeable injury. 5. Courts while enforcing the egg-shell skull rule does not take into account forseeability and this is against the right of tortfeasor.

CONCLUSION The egg-shell skull theory has been the revolutionary theory in Law of Torts. This theory favoured the victims and made sure that adequate damages are awarded to the victim. The scope of this theory has widened over the decades. However, this theory has always been the matter of debate regarding the application of the theory. This theory has moved from being applied to physical conditions to economic, psychological, mental and emotional conditions. However, it is not possible to measure the damages to be awarded while applying egg-shell skull theory and all the conditions cannot be taken into account while deciding the case. Thus, though the theory has been a revolution in law of torts but like the coin have two sides, the theory also have some limitations.

5

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Eggshell Economics: A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule by Steve P. Calandrillo & Dustin E. Buehler 2. Application of egg-shell rule in criminal law by prakhar mittal 3. Gresham v. Petro Stopping Centers [2011] LP, NO. 3:09-cv-00034-RCJ-VPC[2011] WL 1748569 4. Vidrine v Sentry Indem. Co.[1977] 341 So. 2d 558,563 (La. Ct. App. 1977) 5. Vosburg v Putney[1891] Dulieu v White & Sons[1901] 2 K.B. 669 at 679 (Eng.) 6. Reed v Union Pacific Railroad Co.[1999] 185 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1983) 7. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., [1921] 3 K.B. 560 (Eng.)

6...