The “Thin” or “Egg Shell Skull” Rule is a well established Legal Doctrine which holds a person liable for all consequences resulting from his/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 application of this rule does not distinguish between whether or not the fragility or thin skull characteristic of a tort victim is obvious. The term applies that if a person has a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition, injures 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
a: such damage was not reasonably foreseeable or
b: the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of tort, including negligence and strict liability cases, as well as in criminal law. Essentially the Courts do not want the accused or the Defendant to rely on the victim or Plaintiff’s own vulnerability to avoid liability. The tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds them. He compensates for all damage he caused, even if damages are elevated compared to the norm, because the Plaintiff was thin-skulled.
The principle appears to have been established in the 1901 English case of Dulieu V White & Sons 2KB 669 where it was stated:
“If a man is negligently runs over or otherwise negligently injures another, it is no answer to the sufferers claim for damage that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart”
In the case of Harrison V Toombs heard by Her Honour Judge McReynolds in Craigavon County Court on 27th January 2010, the doctrine of the thin or “Eggshell” skull was applied by the Court. Primary liability was not in dispute in this case, however, the case was prepared for contest by the Defendant on a minimal impact basis (i.e. a low velocity accident which could not have caused injury to the Plaintiff).
Essentially the facts of the case were that the Defendant had nudged the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the two vehicles edged forwards in heavy traffic onto a roundabout. Notwithstanding the minor nature of the impact and the subsequent low level of damage caused to the vehicles, the judge was satisfied that the Plaintiff had sustained personal injuries, which contributed to the early onset of long-term neck problems. An MRI Scan showed that the Plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative pathology in her neck, which was essentially dormant at the time of the accident. The Judge considered that this relatively minor road traffic accident was an early activator of the problem, which would have occurred in any event, and affirmed that the Defendant must take his Plaintiff as he finds her. Notwithstanding that, the Defendant could not have been aware of the Plaintiff’s underlying neck condition, he was nonetheless responsible for the injuries which resulted from his negligent act, even though the Plaintiff’s injuries were more severe than one would normally have expected in an accident of such minor nature. The Judge cited the thin skill rule in awarding the Plaintiff damages in the sum of £3500.