Crumbling skull rule

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass land chattels Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Negligent infliction of emotional distress Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice legal medical
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Criminal conversation Seduction Breach of promise
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts, and estates
Law portal

The crumbling skull rule is a well established legal doctrine used in some tort law systems. It holds that where a plaintiff had a condition or injury that predates the tort and would have naturally deteriorated or worsened overtime (e.g. a crumbling skull), the defendant is not responsible to the degree that the condition or injury would have naturally worsened over time. A defendant is only liable for the degree the injury was worsened or the hastening or acceleration of the damage caused by the tort. The crumbling skull rule should not be confused with the related thin skull rule.^[1]

The concept is sometimes applied without specific reference to the crumbling skull rule, instead being expressed as a non-absolute application of the thin skull rule.^[2]^[3]

References

↑ Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, at para. 34-36, online at: http://canlii.ca/t/1fr63
↑ Kavanagh v Akhtar Matter No Ca 40492/97, [1998] NSWSC 779, online at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/1998/779.html
↑ Jones, Tanya (2001). "The Commonwealth v WL McLean: Developments Inconsistent with the Traditional Nature of the Egg Shell Scull Principle" (PDF). James Cook University Law Review. Retrieved 22 December 2014.

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, September 02, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.