What is the Eggshell Skull Rule?
The eggshell skull rule is a legal principle that is of significant importance in personal injury and liability cases. It states that defendants (whether people, corporations, or insurance companies) are liable for the full extent of damages suffered by a victim, even if those damages were caused partly by pre-existing conditions that made them worse for the victim. The legal term for this is "taking his victim as he finds him."
The rule actually dates to the 1812 English tort case of Knightley v. Johns. The dispute in that case concerned the liability of a defendant who was driving a car that got into an accident . However, in that case, the judge found that the conduct of the defendant had to be fully taken into account, and there was no allowance for pre-existing conditions that exacerbated the possible damages suffered by the plaintiff. The New Jersey state Supreme Court upheld this finding, and so did many other states, until the New Jersey Supreme Court eventually limited it to personal injury cases.
The eggshell skull rule, or take your victim as you find him rule, is an important one from a legal standpoint because it prevents defendants from having to make judgments about whether someone was weak, sick, or injured when they were involved in an accident. It also provides an adequate measure of security for victims with underlying injuries or conditions that may become worse through no fault of their own.
Pivotal Cases in History
Historically, courts had conflicting views on whether a plaintiff could recover damages for a pre-existing condition that had been exacerbated by an injury caused by a defendant. This issue was of such importance that the Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1912 for guidance on when an injured party could recover for injury to a pre-existing condition that had been aggravated by an accident caused by a defendant. In Thompson v. Anderson, the court held that "the true rule is that there may be a recovery for the aggravation of a pre-existing injury in full, if the evidence warrants it." The case itself involved a woman who was injured in a railroad train and wagon collision. During the ensuing litigation, the jury heard from a doctor regarding "weakness of the left arm and other serious injuries" suffered prior to the accident. Despite the pre-existing condition, the jury awarded the plaintiff $7,000 in damages, which was deemed reasonable by the reviewing court.
In another early case applying the eggshell skull doctrine, a railroad worker who was pricked in the foot by a tack claimed that he had previously had "running sores on his feet." The court applied the doctrine, citing Anderson, explained that "the maxim means that if a person has a susceptible organism causing him to be unusually reactionary to dangerous poisons, wounds or traumas, the offending agent, however, indirectly, is responsible for the unusual result."
The doctrine also broadened over time as courts began to recognize that a plaintiff need not be in perfect health prior to an accident in order to apply the doctrine. In Boling v. Prospect, a man testified that he was in good health, "without any trouble at all," but states’ experts said he had slight emphysema and that his blood pressure was higher than average. When this truck ran over the plaintiff’s foot as he attempted to cross the highway, the plaintiff began to have shortness of breath and chest pain, was admitted to a hospital for tests, and experienced occasional shortness of breath thereafter. A jury awarded the plaintiff $35,000. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff’s pleurisy was probably latent before the accident and immediately thereafter, "the defendant took the risk that the weakness in the injured party’s structure and function and their previous condition should combine with the injury and bring about a degree of disability far in excess of that expected in a normal individual of like age, sex and occupation, not afflicted with a latent condition."
Contemporary Use in Law
According to the Federal Tort Claims Act, for example, "the liability of the United States shall be determined in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. . . ." While the "law of the place" is not specifically defined, "[t]he Supreme Court has interpreted the Federal Tort Claims Act to incorporate the ‘common law’ of the state where the act or omission giving rise to the claim occurred." Thus, federal courts often resort to eggshell skull rule judicial interpretations and applications under state laws when adjudicating cases involving federal tort claims in the place(s) where the torts are alleged to have occurred.
For example, in Benavides v. City of New York, No. 07 Civ. 10435(RMB)(DF), 2009 WL 2132512 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2009), in an action arising out of an alleged excessive use of force by police officers, Magistrate Judge Freeman adopted the Report and Recommendation of a Motion for Summary Judgment submitted by defendant City of New York, declining to find fault with the police involved, in applying the rules of state law when adjudicating a federal statute case. When addressing the causes of action in this case, which included excessive force under federal law, Magistrate Freeman wrote that "under New York law, a plaintiff may recover damages for a defendant’s negligence that exacerbates a pre-existing injury. . . . Thus, although plaintiffs have not asserted any claims for severe emotional distress, the Court must nonetheless consider any pre-existing emotional distress suffered by Samuel as a result of his falling down the steps at the apartment complex."
The eggshell skull rule was also central to the adjudication of a federal diversity action in Martinez v. Simonetti, 23 A.D.3d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). In Martinez, the Appellate Division wrote that "Defendants contend that the jury’s apportionment of liability is against the weight of the evidence because Samuel had a pre-existing exacerbation of carpal tunnel syndrome." The Court, however, declined to afford this argument concern, and instead concluded that "in light of defendants’ wrongdoing, they are liable for injuries sustained by Samuel even though his injuries were more severe than what was to be expected from the circumstances." Therefore, the Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying defendant’s post-trial motion, and similarly affirmed the jury verdict’s apportionment of 20% liability by the defendants to plaintiff for her son’s injuries.
As is clear then, the eggshell rule is still widely applied in modern law. Furthermore, proper applications of eggshell considerations, particularly within modern tort law contexts such as that in Benavides and Martinez, promote the deterrence of tortious acts, which ultimately serves the interest of society at large.
Controversies and Critiques
Despite its acknowledgment in the common law, there are challenges to the fairness of the eggshell skull rule, primarily in that it does not consider the difference between an original injury that was foreseen and one that was not. The United States Restatement considers these types of injuries as less egregious than those that were unknown: In the case of the unforeseeable, the negligence has resulted in something different from what was intended, and for which the actor is responsibility. When a foreseeability or normal consequence rule is used, the actor will not be held responsible for what is unforeseeable and appears to be distantly related to the negligence that produced it […] The concept of unforeseeability, then, is more closely related to the idea of normal consequences than to that of strict liability and liability for extraordinary consequences . Expansion of liability for unforeseeable results alters the balance of interests arising out of the perilous nature of certain types of conduct. (Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 435A) (Emphasis added) The eggshell skull rule has also been criticized as being subject to potential abuse of legal doctrine when used, especially in personal injury cases. For example, a defendant may be legally liable for the actions of someone who had an epilepsy seizure if that seizure caused harm to the plaintiff. If, however, the plaintiff had a greater than average risk of harm, the plaintiff would be treated as if that seizure had not occurred, even if it caused injury that would not otherwise have occurred.
Implications on Legal Tactics
Regardless of the specific nature of the damages, the existence of the eggshell skull rule can have a huge impact on overall legal strategy. While the plaintiff can technically be at an advantage, this may not always be the case, and the defense certainly needs to develop strategies that take the presence of the rule into account.
Each attorney must consider the following points regarding an eggshell skull plaintiff: The above questions are certainly a place to start, but it is also important to remember that there is a finite amount of information that is able to be uncovered during discovery, and the attorney must be prepared to confront certain issues sooner rather than later. For example, while an attorney will always want to make an eggshell skull plaintiff undergo an independent medical examination performed by a neutral third-party doctor, it is important to remember that an attorney can only request such examinations a finite number of times. Further, an attorney cannot schedule the other party to undergo an independent medical examination at the same time as he or she is in the middle of trial, and may be less likely to be able to justify the need for a second such examination a few months after the first, even if a reasonable convincing argument can be made that the plaintiff has failed to fully disclose all prior medical conditions and has not taken these prior medical issues into account when explaining their current medical situation.
Particularly with respect to neuropsychological testing, it is often the case that the defendant attorney can find a reason (often related to a misunderstanding of the test itself) to object to this test. The plaintiff attorney can then either try to explain the importance of the test, or make a motion to have the test not specified within a limited time frame. It is certainly worth scrutinizing the reasoning behind the objection, and, if persuasive, trying to convince the judge to disallow the objection.
Conclusion and Major Insights
In summary, protecting the rights of injured victims requires a complete understanding of the rule, objections to it, and its application to particular factual situations. Courts have applied the "eggshell skull" approach in various contexts and across state and federal jurisdictions. Briefly, a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him or her. Generally this means that if a defendant was negligent and caused the plaintiff to suffer injury, the defendant may be held liable for the extent of the injury by an eggshell skull plaintiff, no matter how unusual, surprising, or unexpected it was . Increasingly courts apply the eggshell skull approach outside the scope of tort recoveries. Lawyers and clients involved in personal injuries must be aware of the eggshell skull rule and its intended and unintended consequences.
The articles in the Legal Library on the Eggshel Rule include:
Damages
Damages and Jury Instructions in No Fault Cases
Medical Bill Recoveries
Liability and International Standards
State Tort Laws