Eggshell Skull Rule: What Is It?
The Eggshell Skull Rule, also known as the Take Your Victim As You Find Him (or Her) Rule, is a legal doctrine that applies to tort law. It states that a defendant must take responsibility for the plaintiff’s unforeseeable and unusual reactions to the defendant’s wrongful act. The injured person does not need to prove that their injuries could not have reasonably been predicted by the defendant . Named after the idiom, "your victim is like an eggshell, fragile and easily cracked," the Eggshell Skull Rule intends to fairly compensate victims for injuries sustained in a harm-causing event. For example, a defendant will be held liable even if his/her wrongful behavior caused a more severe injury than anticipated because the victim had a physical or psychological vulnerability to which the defendant could not have been aware.
The Origins of the Eggshell Skull Rule in Legal History
Early legal contexts had seen the principle of eggshell skull in operation, even if not denominated as such. The first known judicial pronouncement was that of the Case of Gage, in the Court of Common Pleas in 1698. The case held that the person who had tossed his sword on to the ground and fatally wounded William Gage under his chin should be charged with murder since death could obviously be the result of such an act.
The real evolution of the principle occurred in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century when the courts became increasingly willing to afford individuals protection against the adverse consequences of the manifestly unreasonable acts of co-actors, such as would not have been expected to occur in the normal course of events but were clearly foreseeable in light of the unique position of the claimant in any given case.
In the United States, the Rule emerged at the turn of the Twentieth Century initially by way of dicta in various judicial decisions. The earliest known mention was in the case of Vosburg v. Putney which was decided in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1884 and was later adopted by numerous state courts. In Vosburg, the defendant had kicked, with force, the plaintiff in the shin while the latter attended school. The plaintiff had suffered no physical injury and so the defendant was not liable. However, a few days later, the plaintiff developed a rare ailment that left him totally disabled for life. The case went on to be reversed on a technicality but a subsequent opinion of the court went beyond the facts and stated that "the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act of the defendant, and therefore remoteness of the injury is no objection to the right of recovery in this action.
The principle won general acceptance and spread throughout the United States and Canada. Today, almost every American jurisdiction recognizes the principle in some form or another.
Applying the Eggshell Skull Rule in Personal Injury
The Eggshell Skull Rule, while often maligned or misunderstood, has a clear application in personal injury cases. Those cases can involve deep scars, burns, accidents resulting in amputation of limbs, and severe head trauma. Any such accident could incredibly injure a person with a fragile skull even though that same accident could not have injured a person without a sensitive skull in the same manner.
Because of this doctrine, when a person is harmed due to the negligence of another, they have a right to be compensated for any harm caused to them by the negligence of another which might not have caused injury to someone else. This applies with particular force to medical cases, because surgical procedures or other accidents can cause harm due to a medical condition or trait that a patient has which could not have been reasonably anticipated by a surgeon or doctor.
An example of the application of the Eggshell Skull Rule would be:
Mrs. Knight, who is 5’1" and weighs 95 lbs but has a weak back, attends a concert with her friends at a concert hall in a city where she does not reside. While in the crowd, Mrs. Knight is shoved from behind, causing her to fall to the ground. The concert hall has an inadequate number of security personnel to deal with the shoving and the concert hall had been previously warned about the potential danger of overcro in the crowd. Knight sued the concert hall, the artist, and the promoter.
This scenario is hypothetical and is stated just as an illustration of how the rule can be applied. Because of the rule, the damages claimed by Mrs. Knight would not be affected by the fact that (for example) she is a small woman and therefore may take greater impact in a fall.
Prominent Legal Cases Concerning the Eggshell Skull Rule
The "IPSE DIXIT" case, Court of Appeals of New York, 1897: A defendant demolished a home of plaintiffs by an act of negligence; the plaintiffs had been living in it.
Hoffman v. Caterpillar, Inc. (1992): Mark Hoffman was severely injured when a bulldozer he operated slipped off of an embankment and rolled over, crushing him underneath. In Hoffman, the issue was whether a reasonable jury could have found that the injury could have been "reasonably expected to have resulted from the tortfeasor’s negligence? The appellate court said yes. The court applied the eggshell skull doctrine and upheld a jury instruction that the defendants should have considered the possibility that plaintiff Hoffman would be among those who would suffer the consequences of their negligence.
Samms v. Moore (1998): Decedent was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by his father. In attempting to pass another car defendant Moore’s vehicle struck decedent’s father’s striking it head on . At trial, prevailing party was awarded $4.8 million. The damages were awarded on the basis of totally devastating injuries that had caused decedent great pain and suffering. Subsequently, and after discussions with his attorneys, the decedent’s father asserted the "Eggshell Skull" theory against his deceased son’s estate and requested the entire verdict over the amount already paid as a set-off. Citing to Dumas v Chappelle, the court held the eggshell skull rule does not apply "when the initial negligence results in injury to the eggshell person which is concealed and the victim is placed in a position of making an erroneous demand against the wrong party." In affirming the lower court, the appellate court found that since the full injury was known by the decedent’s attorneys at the time of the demand, the defendant cannot be required to pay twice for the same loss.
Debates and Criticism of the Eggshell Skull Rule
Although the Eggshel Skull Rule is a part of the common law of all the states, it has been criticized by both legal scholars and practitioners. Critics argue that the rule is unfair to defendants, who are required to pay for injuries they did not cause. Furthermore, the rule makes injury cases more difficult to settle. As one legal scholar has explained, "If the modified eggshell plaintiff standard were to replace the traditional tort doctrine in all cases, policy considerations start to support an alternative approach." In particular, "[w]here the eggshell plaintiff doctrine results in large, disproportionate judgments . . . it would appear that some relief for the defendant plaintiff is warranted." Besides the concern that an unmodified use of the eggshell skull rule will inhibit settlements and encourage trial, critics argue that an unmodified use of the rule will have a chilling effect on insurance rates.
The Eggshell Skull Rule’s Place: Now and Ahead
The Eggshell Skull Rule has long been a tenet of tort law, proving that defendants in personal injury cases cannot escape liability by arguing that their victim was particularly susceptible to harm. However, this doctrine may face new scrutiny as courts and legislators grapple with the growing costs of healthcare and burgeoning insurance premiums.
Future Trends: Insurer Interest in the Eggshell Skull Rule One area where the viability of the Eggshell Skull Rule may be tested is in the arena of insurance coverage. Insurers keen on reducing payouts and maximizing profits may challenge the validity of the Eggshell Skull Rule in state legislatures or courts. These challenges could take different forms, from creating legislative caps on damages to testing the limits of "take nothing" verdicts where Plaintiffs have proven causation but not proximate cause. Such attempts at judicial reform will undoubtedly be met with some pushback from consumer advocacy groups that argue that the Eggshell Skull Rule protects the most vulnerable in society while incentivizing Defendant conduct that keeps our communities safe.
Future Implications: Potential Modification of the Eggshell Skull Rule Another possible implication of the Eggshell Skull Rule’s survival is an increased focus on modifications to the doctrine itself. There is evidence to suggest that, in some instances, the Eggshell Skull rule should be qualified by the "modification" doctrine which holds that a tortfeasor in a negligence action may only be held liable for subsequent damages if said damages result in a "permanent worsening of the previously existing injury." This means that the Eggshell Skull Rule only applies to individuals whose pre-existing condition was subjectively "exacerbated" by the defendant’s negligence .
In other words, whereas Eggshell Skull Rule requires Defendant to compensate Plaintiff for damages regardless of whether Plaintiff’s injury was increased due to Plaintiff’s condition, the modified Eggshell Skull rule would require Defendants to compensate Plaintiff for damages only if Plaintiff’s injury was increased due to the defendant’s negligence.
In certain situations, an analysis of the "modification" rule may allow for more courts to exercise discretion in allocating liability to a Defendant’s negligent conduct rather than the Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical condition.
Future Challenges: The Criminalization of Previously Covered Behavior Of all the possible developments that could result from the turmoil surrounding the Eggshell Skull Rule, the most profound would involve the evolution of the criminal law into areas once thought to fall under the ambit of Tort Law. For instance, consider the case of a plaintiff who becomes a quadriplegic due to an escalator malfunction. Later, that plaintiff steals cash from a bank and is shot during a police altercation. Proponents of criminal liability in such instances believe that the victim’s proclivity to steal leads to legal liability because "he should have known better."
As developments in the world of social media, transnational litigation, and relational privacy rights continue to rise, one can certainly expect an increase an intersection between the criminal and tort law doctrines, especially as it relates to the vicarious liability of criminals for the pre-existence of certain characteristics within the victims of their crimes. Will a criminal defendant be allowed to assert plaintiff’s "eggshell skull" against a plaintiff in a court of law? Or will they be barred from doing so as the very definition of "criminality" becomes a composite of traits which are supposed to be excluded from the realm of admissible evidence? Excess and excessiveness will no doubt be at the center of these debates within the courts.