The eggshell rule also things go rule papier-mache plaintiff rule
or Talam column rule is a well-established legal Doctrine
in common law used in some tort law systems with a similar
Doctrine applicable to criminal law.
The rule states that in a tort case, the unexpected Frailty of
the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness
of any injury caused to them law.
This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all
consequences resulting from their tortious.
Usually, Aunt activities leading to an injury to another person,
even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage,
for example, due to a pre-existing vulnerability or
medical condition, the eggshell Schoo rule takes into account
the physical social and economic attributes of a plaintiff which
might make them more susceptible to injury.
It may also take into account the family and cultural
environment. The term implies that if a
person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg
and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition in, That
person's head causing the skull unexpectedly to break.
The defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting
from the wrongful contact. Even if the tortfeasor did not
intend to cause such a severe injury in criminal law, the
general Maxim is that the defendant must take their
victims as they find them, as echoed in the Judgment of Lord
Justice Laden in our, for example, Blau 1975, in which the
defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite
his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion.
Did an intervening act. The doctrine is applied in all
areas, of torts intentional, torts negligence and strict
liability cases, as well, as in criminal law, there is no
requirement of physical contact with a victim, if a trespassers
wrongful presence on the victims property, so terrifies the
victim that he has a fatal heart attack.
The trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from
his original. Tort the foundation for this
rule is based primarily on policy grounds, the courts.
Do not want the defendant or Used to rely on the victims own
vulnerability to avoid liability.
The thins. Go rule is not to be confused
with the related crumbling skull ruin which the plaintiff suffers
from a detrimental position from a prior injury, for instance,
pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort in the
crumbling skull rule, the prior condition is only to be
considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new
injury. Arising from the present tort as
a means of a portioning damages in such a way that the defendant
would not be liable for placing the If in a better position than
they were in prior to the present, turret example, in an
example, a person who is osteogenesis imperfecta also
known as brittle. Bone, syndrome is more likely to
be injured in a motor vehicle accident if the person with 0 is
hit from behind in a motor vehicle collision and suffers
medical damages such as clavicle fracture, it would not be a
valid defense to state. That the osteogenesis imperfecta
was the cause of a fracture case illustrations in the 1962.
English case of Smith V leech, brain and Company.
And employee in a factory was flashed with molten metal.
The metal burned him on his lip, which happened to be pre
malignant tissue. He died three years later from
cancer triggered by the injury. The judge held that.
As long as the initial injury was foreseeable, the defendant
was liable for all the harm in 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court came to a similar result in Boss.
Berg for example, Putney in that case.
A boy kicked another from across the island.
The Classroom, it turned out that the victim had an unknown
microbial condition that was irritated and resulted in him
entirely losing the use of his leg.
No one could have predicted the level of injury.
Nevertheless, the court found that the kicking was unlawful
because it violated the order and decorum of the classroom and
the perpetrator was therefore fully liable for the injury in
been the Appellate Court determined that the eggshell
rules should have been applied to a case in which a man had a
heart attack and died after being bruised in the chest
during a rear end car. Dent in the Australian case of
Mater, V Urban transit, authority of nsw.
The plaintiff was a ten-year-old boy who struck his head on a bus
stop Paul while alighting from a slowly moving bus.
He developed a rare psychological condition known as
cancer syndrome. The defendant argued that the
illness resulted from his family's response.
To the accident, McHugh just said at 537.
The defendant must take the plaintiff with all his
weaknesses beliefs and reactions as well as his capacities and
attributes. Physical social and economic.
If the result of an accident is that a ten year old boy reacts
to his parents concern over his injuries and develops an
hysterical condition. No reason of Justice morality or
entrenched principle appears to me to prevent his recovery of
compensation, in the Australian case of Cavanaugh V actor.
The Court held the tortfeasor should take into account, the
plaintiffs family, and cultural setting equality before the law
puts a heavy onus on the person who would argue that the unusual
reaction of an Plaintiff should be disregarded because of
minority religious or cultural situation.
May not have been foreseeable exceptions.
Intervening causes typically an exception to the eggshell skull
rule, if an injury is not immediate but a separate
situation, agitates, the injury such as the injured party, being
involved in a vehicular Collision.
While being taken to a hospital. The tortfeasor is not liable.
Under common law in Australia, refer to Hopper V Walker, and
Mahoney V Cruikshank demolitions in however V Walker.
It was held that a plaintiff will not be liable for a novice
actus intervene Ian's intervening act.
If the chain of causation was broken by a voluntary human act
or an independent event, which in conjunction with the wrongful
Act, was so unlikely as to be termed a coincidence.
In Mahoney V crew, Chic demolitions the plaintiff clock
of it was injured while working on the demolition of a
Powerhouse for the respondent. While being treated for his
injuries, his injuries were exacerbated by the negligent,
medical treatment of the appellant.
It was held that, there was no novice act as a result of
medical treatment of injuries caused by the defendants
negligence. Unless such treatment is in
excusably, bad or completely outside the bounds of what a
reputable medical practitioner. Might prescribe the Curious
liability is a form of a strict. Secondary liability that arises
under the common law doctrine of agency respondeat Superior the
responsibility of the superior for the acts of their
subordinate or in a broader sense, the responsibility of an
ether. Third party, that had the right
ability were duty to control the activities of a violator.
It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another
form of secondary liability which is rooted in the tort
theory of Enterprise liability because unlike contributory
infringement knowledge is not an element of the carrier's
liability. The law has developed a view
that some Relationships by their nature.
Require the person who engages others to accept responsibility
for the wrongdoing of those others.
The most important such relationship for Cool purposes.
Is that of employer and employee employers liability.
Employers, are variously liable under the respondeat superior
Doctrine for negligent, Acts or omissions by their employees in
the course of employment. Sometimes refer to as scope and
course of employment. To determine whether the
employer is liable, the difference between an
independent contractor and an employee's to be drawn in order
to be the carius Lee liable. There must be a requisite
relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor.
Which could be examined by three tests, control test organization
test and sufficient relationship test an employer.
May be held liable under principles of Aquarius
liability. If an employee does an
authorized act in an unauthorized way.
Employers may also be liable under the common law principle
represented in the Latin phrase Ki Fateh per volume pocket.
Per se, one who acts through another acts in one's own
interests. That is a parallel concept of a
curious liability in strict liability.
In which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort
for the acts or omissions of another in Australia, the
sufficient relationship test in tailing.
The balancing of several factors such as skill, levels required
in the job, pay schemes and degree of control.
Granted to the worker has been the favorite approach for an act
to be considered within the course of employment.
It must either be authorized or be so connected with an
authorized act. That it can be considered a mode
though an improper mode of performing it Court sometimes.
English between an employee's detour versus a Frolic of their
own. For instance, an employer will
be held liable. If it is shown that the employee
had gone on a mere detour, and carrying out their duties such
as stopping a, by a beverage or use an automated teller machine.
While running a work-related errand, where is an employee
acting in their own, right? Rather than on the employers
business is undertaking a Frolic and will not subject.
The employer to liability principles liability, the owner
of an automobile can be helped the curiously liable for
Negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been lent as
if the owner was a principal and the driver their agent if the
driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of
performing. A task for the owner courts have
been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other
kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a
plane will not be the curiously. Liable for the actions of a
pilot to whom he or she is lended to perform the owners
purpose in the United States. The carrier's liability for
automobiles has since been abolished with respect to car
Leasing and Rental in all 50 states.
One example is in the case of a bank finance company or other
lienholder, performing, a repossession of an automobile
from the registered owner for non-payment.
The lienholder has a non-delegable duty Not to cause
a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or
it will be liable for damages, even if the repossession is
performed by an agent. This requirement means that
whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or
by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the
Peace or the lienholder will be held responsible.
This requirement, not to breach, the peace has held upon the
lienholder. Even if the breach is caused by
say the debtors objection to the repossession, resisting the
repossession. In the court case of mbank El
Paso where hired repossessor towed away a car even after the
registered owner locked herself in it.
The court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace
and declared the repossession. Invalid, the debtor was also,
awarded 1 million two hundred thousand dollars in Damages from
Um, the bank, however, notably a breach of the peace, will
invariably constitute a criminal misdemeanor criminal law in part
separate and distinct liability. Upon each actor, considered a
person under the law, and therefore a corporation and the
corporation's employee May both be charged with having
committed. Exactly the same crime.
In addition to any civil liability for which the law
imposes, parental liability in the United States.
The question of Parental responsibility, generally
follows the common law principle that Parent is not civilly,
liable for injuries, resulting from a child's negligence merely
because of a parent-child relationship.
When a child causes an injury, parents may be held liable for
their own negligent, acts such as failure to properly,
supervise a child or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such
as a handgun outside, the reach of their children.
Many states have also passed laws that impose, some liability
on parents for the intentional wrongful acts committed by their
minor children, liability of Corporations and tort in English
law. A corporation can only act
through its employees and agents, so it is necessary to
decide in which circumstances the law of agency review.
Curious, liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in
tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers.
If liability for the particular, tort requires a state of mind,
then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that
state of mind. And it must be attributed to the
company. In Meridian, Global funds
management, Asia limited, for example, Securities Commission,
Employees of the company acting within the scope of their
Authority. But unknown to the directors use
company funds to acquire some shares, the question was,
whether the company knew or ought to have known that?
It had acquired those shares, the privy Council held that it
did whether by virtue of their actual were ostensibly
authorities agents acting within their Authority.
Refer to Lloyd be Grace Smith and company or is employees
acting in the course of their employment, refer to our mock
has limited be mindaugas their Acts and omissions, and their
knowledge, could be attributed to the company, and this would
give rise to liability is joint. Tortfeasors were the directors
have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on
behalf of the company. So if a director or officer is
expressly authorized to make representations of a particular
class on behalf of the company and fraudulently makes a
representation of that class to a third-party causing loss, the
company will be liable. Even though the particular
representation was an improper way of doing what he was
authorized to do the End of authority is a question of fact
and is significantly more than the fact of an employment, which
gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the
fraud in Panorama developments Guilford, limited V Fedele's
Furnishing Fabrics limited. A company secretary fraudulently
hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the
managing director. A company secretary routinely
enters into contracts in the company's name and has
administrative responsibilities. That would give apparent
authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable in
Employees, continued, liability, and indemnity a common
misconception, involves the liability of the employee.
For tortious acts committed within the scope and authority
of their employment. Although the employer is liable
under respondeat Superior for the employees conduct the
employee to remains jointly liable for the harm caused.
As the American law Institute. SRI statement of the law of
agency third section. 7.01 States.
An agent is subject to liability to a third party harmed by the
Tortious conduct unless an applicable statute provides.
Otherwise an actor remains subject to liability.
Although the actor acts as an agent or an employee with actual
or apparent Authority or within the scope of employment, every
American state follows this same rule, the question of
indemnification arises, when either solely the employee or
solely, the employers suit, if only the employee is sued, then
that employee May seek indemnification from the
employer, the conduct was within the course and scope of their
employment. Ointment if only the employer is
sued, then the employer can attempt to avoid liability by
claiming the employees conduct was outside of the scope of the
employees Authority. But the employer generally
cannot sue the employee to recover.
Indemnification for the employees, torts for an example
of a court. Confirming an employer's, right
to sue an employee. For indemnification, see the
case of Lister V, Romford, ice and Cold Storage Company.
Limited ecclesiastical corporations in the 2003
decision do for example. Oh Bennett the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled that in cases of abuse scandals involving
Catholic priests liability derives, from the power and
authority over. Parishioners that the church
gave to its clergyman