Thin Skull Rule Canada Example
Whether the client has a thin skull or a crumbling skull, advocates of assault will rely heavily on expert advice from experienced doctors. Maintaining medical experts or other categories that understand the concept of thin-headed claimant is key to success in these cases. We regularly hire experienced psychiatrists and/or psychologists to testify in thin cases so that the jury can easily understand the concept of the vulnerable person, whether it is a psychological or physical vulnerability. Many alternative practitioners are familiar with the term “thin skull applicant.” This is a legal principle relating to a “vulnerable person”. It is also an area of personal injury law where medicine and law come together to produce equitable outcomes for accident victims who have congenital vulnerabilities or pre-existing conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that Culligan, as a producer of the drinking water, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, as a consumer, by providing bottled water and breached the standard of care by providing the plaintiff with contaminated water. The Tribunal also found that the applicant met the personal injury status because he had suffered a debilitating psychological injury that had a significant impact on his life. However, the court found that, although the offence did cause the offence, this was not legally the case. The court stated that “the law expects reasonable strength and robustness from its citizens and will not impose any responsibility for the extraordinary fragility of any particular person.” The applicant did not meet the criterion of predictability, namely that it was foreseeable that a normal person would suffer serious injury if he saw the flies in the water bottle he wanted to install but did not drink. Unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are conceivable, but not reasonably foreseeable. In legal circles, a debate erupts over whether the venerable “thin skull” rule has been “watered down.” What do you think? Since the rule of thinness recognizes that some people are physically more vulnerable than others and that the perpetrator must “take his victim as he finds her”, the injured party is therefore liable for the full extent of the harm suffered by the injured party.
This rule applies not only to bodily injury, but the courts have also extended it to psychological and psychiatric injuries. The “ruined skull” rule simply recognizes that a person`s prior condition was inherent in his or her “initial situation” and that the injured party does not need to put the claimant in a better position than before the injury. The defendant is liable for the injuries and impairments caused, even if they are extreme, but does not have to compensate the plaintiff for the debilitating effects of the pre-existing condition that the plaintiff would have experienced anyway. Many defendants will attempt to argue that the plaintiff had a “ruined skull” if the plaintiff claims a “thin skull” to reduce the damages ultimately payable. The doctrine is applied in all areas of tort – wilful 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 so much that they suffer a fatal heart attack, the intruder is liable for damages resulting from their original criminal act. [ref. needed] The basis of this rule is mainly based on political reasons. The courts do not want the defendant to rely on the vulnerability of the victim to avoid liability. The rule of skull thinness is counterbalanced by another legal principle which provides that an injured party does not have to put the plaintiff in a better position than he would have been if he had never been injured.
The “ruined skull” plaintiff (yes, lawyers and judges can be quite morbid) is a thin-headed relative of the plaintiff and that is also a rule of law. In Benn v. Thomas, the Court of Appeal ruled that the eggshell rule should have been applied to a case where a man had a heart attack and died after suffering a bruise on his chest in a rear-end collision. [10] In a May 2008 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the “thin skull” rule was repeated. Culligan is a manufacturer and supplier of drinking water in rural areas such as Haliburton. The plaintiff replaced an empty drinking water bottle with a full one and saw in the unopened replacement bottle a dead fly and part of another dead fly. Obsessed with the event and its “repellent effects” on his family`s health, he developed severe depressive disorder, phobia and anxiety. He sued Culligan for psychiatric injury. The “thin skull” rule is an old rule of English law that applies in Canada to the negligence (tort) of one person (the injured party) against another person causing bodily harm. An example is slipping and falling into the parking lot of a mall that is not properly maintained by snow and ice in winter. The principle is that the injured party is responsible for the plaintiff`s injuries, even if injuries due to a pre-existing condition, such as a thin skull, are of unexpected severity if serious head injuries result from a slip or fall.
The perpetrator must take his victim as the injured party finds the victim and is therefore liable, even if the plaintiff`s injuries are more dramatic than they would be for a normal person. The example often given in legal texts is when a person (the author) carelessly collides with a man and causes him to fall to the ground. The Lord throws His head on the ground. The incident is minor and most people would get up from the ground and walk with maybe a small bump on their head. However, the gentleman in this example was born with an eggshell type skull and the bump on his head causes a fractured skull and severe brain injury. In this example, it is not a defence for the author to say that the gentleman had an unusually thin skull and therefore should not be held liable for damages.