The ruined skull rule is a well-established legal doctrine used in some tort systems. If a plaintiff had a condition or injury older than the offence and it would have naturally worsened or worsened over time (e.g., a ruined skull), the defendant is not liable to the extent that the condition or injury would have naturally worsened over time. A defendant is liable only for the extent to which the damage was aggravated or for the acceleration or acceleration of the damage caused by the crime. The rule of the crumbling skull should not be confused with the rule of the thin skull associated with it.  “In my view, the `crumbling skull doctrine` applies to the applicant`s emotional or psychological state at the time of the accident in 2009,” he wrote. “The evidence shows that the plaintiff was at risk that her pre-existing emotional or psychological state would have negatively affected her in the future, regardless of the defendant`s negligence.” The thin skull and ruined skull cases deal with plaintiffs who already have existing conditions. A Supreme Court of Canada decision, released in May 2008, revised the “thin skull” rule. Culligan is a manufacturer and supplier of drinking water in rural areas such as Haliburton. The applicant replaced an empty bottle of drinking water with a full one and saw a dead fly and part of another dead fly in the unopened replacement bottle. Obsessed with the event and its “disgusting effects” on his family`s health, he developed major depressive disorder, phobia and anxiety. He sued Culligan for psychiatric injury. As a result, the province`s highest court ordered a new trial, criticizing the original judge for ruling that Breanna Margaret Gordon`s depression and conflict with her mother made her a “ruined skull” plaintiff, a legal term that essentially means she was doomed to suffer anyway.
so that it deserves less compensation from the negligent driver. who caused the accident. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that a judge was wrong to dismiss a woman`s claims for compensation for injuries she suffered in a car accident because her pre-existing mental health issues meant she would suffer anyway The cruel nickname of the rule is meant to compare it to the “eggshell skull” rule. that a defendant cannot claim that a plaintiff`s harm is worse than it should be. or would have been for the average person. It is often said this way: you take your victims as you find them, however fragile they may be. The metaphor is that an eggshell can be fragile, but it is stable, but a crumbling skull gets worse on its own. The effect of this distinction can sometimes be measured in thousands of dollars, as is likely to be the case if this case is properly decided.
The thin skull rule makes the defendant liable for the plaintiff`s injuries, even if the injuries are of unexpected severity due to an already existing but stable condition. The defendant must take the victim because he finds him with all the weaknesses and special dispositions he might have and is responsible, although the plaintiff`s losses are more dramatic than they would be for the average person. The Crumbling Skull rule is for an applicant who has an unstable prerequisite. The defendant does not need to compensate the plaintiff for the effects of his condition, which he would have suffered anyway. The defendant is liable for additional damages, but not for already existing damages. The concept is sometimes applied without specific reference to the ruined skull rule and expressed rather as a non-absolute application of the thin skull rule.   It refers to the legal rule that if a plaintiff with a pre-existing condition claims damages, a defendant only has to pay for what would not have happened naturally otherwise. In other words, a defendant is not obliged to present the plaintiff better than before. The Supreme Court ruled that Culligan, as a producer of drinking water, owed the plaintiff, as a consumer, a duty of care in providing bottled water and violated the standard of care by providing the plaintiff with contaminated water.
The court also found that the applicant met the condition of assault because he had suffered debilitating psychological harm that had a significant impact on his life. However, the court concluded that, although the violation did cause the violation, it did not do so under the law. The Court noted that “the law expects adequate strength and robustness from its citizens and does not provide for liability for the exceptional fragility of certain people.” The applicant had not passed the predictability test, which was that it was foreseeable that a normal person would suffer serious injuries if he saw the flies in the water bottle he wanted to install but did not drink. Unusual or extreme reactions to negligent events are conceivable, but not reasonably foreseeable. In legal circles, a debate ensued as to whether the venerable “thin skull” rule had been “watered down”. What do you think? This term “skull in ruins” is a common term in personal injury law, but it is “rarely useful,” according to the Court of Appeal`s decision. The “Thin Skull” rule is an old rule of English law that applies in Canada to acts of negligence (a tort) of one person (the injured party) against another person that cause bodily injury. One example is a slip and fall into a parking lot of a shopping mall that is not properly kept away from snow and ice in winter. The principle is that the injured party is liable for the plaintiff`s injuries even if the injuries are of unexpected severity due to an already existing disease, such as a thin skull, if serious head injuries are caused by slips and falls. The injured party 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 those of a normal person. A B.C. judge erred when he dismissed a young woman`s claims for psychological harm after a car accident because he thought her mental health issues, including a strained relationship with her mother, meant she would ultimately have suffered psychological harm anyway.
He notes that her parents divorced when she was young and barely knew her father, who was a drug addict and died about a year before the accident. She used drugs and alcohol in high school and scored “poorly,” but was athletic and healthy. • Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Twitter: JosephBrean REFERENCES:Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (CSC),  3 S.C.R. 458, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235,  1 W.W.R. 97Dulieu v. White & Sons,  2 K.B. 669 Owens v. Liverpool Corp.,  1 K. B. 394 (available in Vancouver and regional court libraries)Canadian Tort Law, 8th edition (available in most B.C.
courthouse libraries) “Causation in Tort in Law: Back to Basics at the Supreme Court of Canada” Alberta Law Review (1997) 35:1013-34 (available in HeinOnline and Salle de reading and printed in the Vancouver and Kamloops Court Libraries) “The Test for Causality for Statutory Accident Benefits: Monk v. ING” The Advocates Quarterly, (2008) 34:360-375 (available at the Vancouver Courthouse Library and HeinOnline and reading room) The judge saw things differently. He acknowledged that there was a link between the pain of physical injuries and mental health problems, but concluded that his mental health problems “existed due to the deterioration of her relationship with her mother before the accident, but worsened due to the accident and the pain she suffered.” The judge described the “remarkable discord” that arose at home, where Gordon lived with his mother and “an old contact of his mother who had spent time in prison,” as the judge put it. “It seems that this person (Gordon) has always been depressed, and that`s a factor that led (her) to move in with her grandmother.” After graduation, she began studying for a career in social work, but after the accident, she struggled to concentrate and was physically painful to sit in class and gave up. Later, she found work as a waitress in restaurants, then as a traffic flag and in a cosmetics store, and more recently had significant financial success in selling blenders. But right after the accident, she was in a terrible state. She was physically injured, but not seriously. A doctor diagnosed a herniated disc and soft tissue damage and told them not to work or exercise. Trial Judge Gregory Bowden`s reasons read like an indictment of her life and prospects, and he placed little emphasis on her testimony, calling her a “bad historian.” One doctor called the accident the “only trigger” for his depression and anxiety, and a psychiatrist also identified it as the cause. The accident occurred in 2009 in Coquitlam, British Columbia, when Gordon was 19 years old. The other driver, Frances Ahn, made a left turn in his 2008 Lexus directly in the lane of Gordon`s 1999 Honda Civic. In court, she admitted liability, and the only issue was the amount of damages.
Both cars suffered total losses, but the collision was not particularly severe. Gordon`s airbags didn`t even intervene, she didn`t knock on the window or steering wheel, and didn`t leave the scene after being checked by a paramedic. Psychologically, however, she developed symptoms that met the clinical norm for major depressive disorder, which was worse about a year after the accident. She reported that she spent months in bed “looking at the walls and losing touch with the outside world.” She has already been treated for an overdose of her painkillers, which she denied was a suicide attempt. The appeal judges struggled to understand how he came to this conclusion, especially since Gordon had shown no signs of major depression before the accident and there was no comparison of his mental health before and after.