Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule, papier-mâché-plaintiff rule, or talem qualem rule) [1] is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, [2] 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 ...
Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405 is a landmark English tort law case in negligence, concerning remoteness of damage or causation in law. It marked the establishment of the eggshell skull rule, [1] the idea that an individual is held responsible for the full consequences of his negligence, regardless of extra, or special damage caused to others.
Lee's first book, the memoir Eggshell Skull was published by Allen & Unwin in early 2018. [9] It describes Lee's experience as a complainant in the Australian court system for sexual abuse she was subjected to as a child, while simultaneously working as a Judge's Associate working on similar cases.
However, once it is shown that some psychiatric damage was foreseeable, it does not matter that the claimant was particularly susceptible to psychiatric illness - the defendant must "take his victim as he finds him" and pay for all the consequences of nervous shock (see "Eggshell skull" rule). A mere bystander can therefore hardly count on ...
Part of a series on common law: English tort law; Negligence; Acts of the claimant; Bolam test; Breach of duty; Breaking the chain; Causation; Duty of care; Eggshell skull
Eggshell skull – Doctrine under which an individual is held liable for all consequences resulting from his actions even if the victim suffers an unusually high levels of damage (i.e., a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The term comes an example argument that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and an ...
The Bronx man allegedly flew into a rage on a southbound No. 5 train approaching the Fulton Street station around 6:10 a.m. when the elderly victim stumbled over his foot, according to cops and ...
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster.