egg shell quiestion in a nutshell

WayneScott

Does eggshell skull principle apply to psychological vulnerabilities? If a person is more vulnerable than normal to psychological abuse, because of a previous abuse, would a future abuser be fully responsible

Pat Mustard

Yes. I don't see why not.

The eggshell skull rule is that you take your plaintiff as you find him. For instance, if I hit you with my car and you develop post traumatic depression arising out the collision, then I will be responsible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

EDIT: However, it should be borne in mind that defendants often attempt to argue that damage has arisen out of previous injuries. So in an abuse case, perhaps the defendant would argue that he was not the cause of certain damage, but that it had been caused earlier. This will be a matter for the judge to decide from the expert evidence, rather than the opinion of any lawyer.

WayneScott

The Mustard wrote: »

Yes. I don't see why not.

The eggshell skull rule is that you take your plaintiff as you find him. For instance, if I hit you with my car and you develop post traumatic depression arising out the collision, then I will be responsible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

EDIT: However, it should be borne in mind that defendants often attempt to argue that damage has arisen out of previous injuries. So in an abuse case, perhaps the defendant would argue that he was not the cause of certain damage, but that it had been caused earlier. This will be a matter for the judge to decide from the expert evidence, rather than the opinion of any lawyer.

if I hit you with my car and you develop post traumatic depression arising out the collision, then I will be responsible.

i thought it applied to a condition the victim had before the accident. So if i had a fear of crossing the road and you hit me and broke my leg would you have to pay more copmpensation than than if you broke my leg and i had not had the fear

. So in an abuse case, perhaps the defendant would argue that he was not the cause of certain damage, but that it had been caused earlier

my understanding was the condition was pre existing.
So if you had been abused and were traumatised and someone abused you a nsecond time, would the second timer have to pay more compensation than if his abusew was the first

Pat Mustard

WayneScott wrote: »

i thought it applied to a condition the victim had before the accident. So if i had a fear of crossing the road and you hit me and broke my leg would you have to pay more copmpensation than than if you broke my leg and i had not had the fear

You are correct. I should have been more specific. If you had some underlying propensity towards depression or something like that, if my negligence caused your post traumatic depression, then I would still be responsible.

WayneScott wrote: »

my understanding was the condition was pre existing.
So if you had been abused and were traumatised and someone abused you a nsecond time, would the second timer have to pay more compensation than if his abusew was the first

You are correct. However, it can be a difficult question to answer, since the defendant will naturally argue that the damage had already arisen from the previous injuries, and that that they had not caused the current injuries. The plaintiff will argue that if there were previous injuries, that they were aggravated by the defendant's actions.

It will be a matter of evidence, which will come from the experts.

maryjane1970

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You are correct. I should have been more specific. If you had some underlying propensity towards depression or something like that, if my negligence caused your post traumatic depression, then I would still be responsible.


You are correct. However, it can be a difficult question to answer, since the defendant will naturally argue that the damage had already arisen from the previous injuries, and that that they had not caused the current injuries. The plaintiff will argue that if there were previous injuries, that they were aggravated by the defendant's actions.

It will be a matter of evidence, which will come from the experts.

Does the same apply if say the person was getting treatment for post traumatic stress and nearing the end of there treatment when they were involved in another accident causing the ptsd to be worse than ever?

Pat Mustard

maryjane1970 wrote: »

Does the same apply if say the person was getting treatment for post traumatic stress and nearing the end of there treatment when they were involved in another accident causing the ptsd to be worse than ever?

Very possibly. Depends on what the medical evidence shows, of course.

maryjane1970

do you mean the medical history saying the condition has got worse since the last accident?the defendants will argue either way that the condition was there and the last accident made no difference.
are these types of cases common in the courts and do they always go before a judge or get settled early?

Pat Mustard

The issue of whether an injury arose out of a particular accident or not is a medical issue for a doctor to answer, whether by means of a medical report or by giving evidence in court.

These types of issues, concerning multiple accidents and multiple injuries are not very uncommon in personal injury (PI) cases.

Some PI cases settle early. Other PI cases settle later. Some PI cases run to trial in front of a judge.

maryjane1970

Is a person involved in a Low velocity impact crash more at risk of these type of injures because they had pre-existing conditions and how do the courts look at this?
Is this when the egg shell effect is used?

Hoboo

maryjane1970 wrote: »

Is a person involved in a Low velocity impact crash more at risk of these type of injures because they had pre-existing conditions and how do the courts look at this?
Is this when the egg shell effect is used?

Velocity doesn't comes into it. If you hit someone with brittle bones at 10mph and smashed every bone in their body, you couldn't argue they should only have scratches.

Pat Mustard

maryjane1970 wrote: »

Is a person involved in a Low velocity impact crash more at risk of these type of injures because they had pre-existing conditions and how do the courts look at this?
Is this when the egg shell effect is used?

The courts look at the medical evidence that is presented to them.

The plaintiff's doctor may say that the pre-existing injuries were aggravated by the current accident (eggshell skull principle). The defendant's doctor may say that the injuries now complained of were not caused by the current accident but that they were caused by a previous accident.

It all comes down to what can be shown by the evidence.

NUTLEY BOY

Just a view.

In negligence, a defendant is liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.

The egg-shell skull principle is an exception to the reasonable foreseeability rule.

Two alternative views of principle operate in relation to pre-existing injuries or vulnerabilities.

1. A plaintiff may suffer from a symptomatically current or active condition at the time that an injury is inflicted on them. In that case the defendant is only liable for the additional injury inflicted by them.

2. A plaintiff may suffer from an underlying condition which it is symptomatically quiescent but which predisposes them to a greater vulnerability than normal in the event of an injury. In that case the defendant will usually be liable for those injuries that would go beyond what is otherwise reasonably foreseeable. This would come within the concept of taking your victim as you find them / egg-shell skull as explained by Pat Mustard above.

See Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405 for an example of the concept.

The defendant employer was negligent. Molten metal splashed. A blob burned the employee's lip. The employee's lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were lighted up by the injury. He died a few years later from the cancer that ensued. The deceased's widow succeeded in her action against the employer.

In relation to psychological / psychiatric injuries the working principles would be the same. That said, the requisite evidence is more likely to be complex and difficult of proof -possibly for both sides.

maryjane1970

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Just a view.

In negligence, a defendant is liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.

The egg-shell skull principle is an exception to the reasonable foreseeability rule.

Two alternative views of principle operate in relation to pre-existing injuries or vulnerabilities.

1. A plaintiff may suffer from a symptomatically current or active condition at the time that an injury is inflicted on them. In that case the defendant is only liable for the additional injury inflicted by them.

2. A plaintiff may suffer from an underlying condition which it is symptomatically quiescent but which predisposes them to a greater vulnerability than normal in the event of an injury. In that case the defendant will usually be liable for those injuries that would go beyond what is otherwise reasonably foreseeable. This would come within the concept of taking your victim as you find them / egg-shell skull as explained by Pat Mustard above.

See Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405 for an example of the concept.

The defendant employer was negligent. Molten metal splashed. A blob burned the employee's lip. The employee's lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were lighted up by the injury. He died a few years later from the cancer that ensued. The deceased's widow succeeded in her action against the employer.

In relation to psychological / psychiatric injuries the working principles would be the same. That said, the requisite evidence is more likely to be complex and difficult of proof -possibly for both sides.

But how does that be applied if the person was at the end of there treatment and was on the mend and had to quit there job because of this?
say the person was able to go to there work weeks after the first accident and then was getting treatment and then the 2nd accident happened and they had to quit there job?

NUTLEY BOY

The trial judge will look at the medical and other evidence presented and decide which category applies i.e. imposition of a supervening injury or egg-shell skull.

The decision is based on the evidence tendered. Therefore, a plaintiff presenting the more expansive egg-shell skull argument will need to present all relevant evidence to stand it up to the required standard, namely the balance of probabilities.

johnnyskeleton

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

See Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405 for an example of the concept.

The defendant employer was negligent. Molten metal splashed. A blob burned the employee's lip. The employee's lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were lighted up by the injury. He died a few years later from the cancer that ensued. The deceased's widow succeeded in her action against the employer.

In relation to psychological / psychiatric injuries the working principles would be the same. That said, the requisite evidence is more likely to be complex and difficult of proof -possibly for both sides.

I'd be interested to see how the Irish Courts deal with an egg shell skull type case, particularly in recent years with (perhaps just my view) a trend of moving away from readily finding liabilty and towards a test of whether a person acted reasonably. It would be strange if a supermarket owner was not liable for the reasonably forseeable injury of a broken leg caused when someone slipped in some oil if they had taken reasonable steps to avoid that person slipping, yet they would be liable because something trivial occurs that no one would reasonably foresee could cause serious injury or death.

I'm not doubting the rule's application, I just wonder if it will be the next principle to be overturned or fall into disuse.

NUTLEY BOY

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'd be interested to see how the Irish Courts deal with an egg shell skull type case, particularly in recent years with (perhaps just my view) a trend of moving away from readily finding liabilty and towards a test of whether a person acted reasonably. It would be strange if a supermarket owner was not liable for the reasonably forseeable injury of a broken leg caused when someone slipped in some oil if they had taken reasonable steps to avoid that person slipping, yet they would be liable because something trivial occurs that no one would reasonably foresee could cause serious injury or death.

I'm not doubting the rule's application, I just wonder if it will be the next principle to be overturned or fall into disuse.

Fair argument I think.

Are you thinking along the lines of Cardozo C J in Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) ? He was suggesting that there cannot be liabilities for an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class of plaintiffs.

The egg-shell skull principle seems to be well settled. I am not aware of any recent Irish cases in which is has been disapproved of - even obiter.

I suspect that the trend of progressive expansion of the bases of tortious liability would likely see the principle adhered to rather than contracted.