The Eggshell Skull Rule Explained
The Eggshell Skull rule, often expressed as "you take your plaintiff with his eggshell skull," has a definition that will interest any attorney who practices personal injury law. The rule is intended to prevent misfortune to a person in a tort action. (A tort action may arise from negligence, strict liability, or intentional torts. In a negligence case, the defendant may have been acting reasonably, but the plaintiff was injured regardless.) Under the "eggshell" legal theory, defendants cannot get off the hook simply because they did not know how fragile the plaintiff was at the time of the injury. These rules serve to apply the principle of Individualized Justice.
There are several rules that together make up the eggshell skull analysis. When the defendant causes an injury of some sort, the eggshell skull rule says that he or she is liable for all injuries that occur to the plaintiff, even though the harm turns out to be far more severe than the defendant could have predicted. For example, when a defective lawnmower sends debris flying and the plaintiff has a glass eye , the defendant cannot succeed in a case by saying "I never would have known that was his glass eye. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have used the same materials."
The "eggshell" rule means that the defendant is held to account for negligence of any kind that results in an injury to the plaintiff, even if the negligence was not reckless or even that careless. Thus, "you take your plaintiff with his eggshell skull." Under the eggshell skull rule, the defendant must pay for the full value of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering, medical bills, mental anguish, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life caused by the defendant’s negligent or, worse still, intentional actions.
Some commentators trace the eggshell skull rule back to the Bible’s Book of Proverbs (proverbs 25:17). This biblical story shows that one cannot discover the truth by mollifying the person with whom one is disagreeing. The proverbial moral here is that the truth is not always the same as what people want to believe.
Origins and History
The roots of the eggshell skull rule can be traced back to early common law principles, where courts grappled with how to address the complex realities of tort injuries. One of the earliest cases to articulate a version of the eggshell skull rule was Weaver v. Ford Motor Co., a holding from 1955. In that case, a pregnant woman was thrown from her vehicle after a collision. She gave birth prematurely as a result. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Charleton Allen, the California Supreme Court stated: One who uses an automobile on a public highway must realize that his activity may cause injury to some other traveler on the highway. If such injury results from the ordinary peril of operating an automobile . . . the use of the risky instrumentality brings the risk of harm to all.
Another pivotal eggshell skull case that set the stage for future applications of the rule was Cobin v. Grigsby, a 1958 California case. In Cobin, the plaintiff, a young child whose head had been injured in an accident, was rendered mentally incompetent because of the injury. The trial court concluded that recovery was precluded because of the child’s preexisting mental condition and the defendant’s lack of knowledge about the plaintiff’s preexisting condition (the defendant had a limited duty to avoid causing harm and was only liable for fault). The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District overturned that judgment, concluding that "a tort-feasor is liable for the consequences of its want of ordinary care even though it has no knowledge either of the plaintiff’s vulnerability or of its own lack of care." 273 P.2d at 39. The court held that "it is immaterial whether the defendant had notice of [the plaintiff’s preexisting condition]" and that "a defendant is liable for damages to plaintiff caused by his own failure to conform his conduct to the standard of a reasonably prudent person under all of the circumstances, regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff’s peculiar condition." Id. at 35.
Cobin would later be followed by Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser, a 1983 decision by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. In that case, the plaintiff, who had suffered a skull fracture during a car accident, collapsed and died eight months later from an aneurism he (unbeknownst to him) had developed as a result of the accident. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the eggshell skull rule. The appellate court reversed, concluding that "[t]he ‘eggshell as fragile as he is’ rule, which applies where the plaintiff is especially susceptible to the defendant’s negligent conduct, is controlling in a situation in which the plaintiff is especially susceptible to physical harm resulting from the defendant’s negligent conduct."
The eggshell skull rule has been widely adopted in other jurisdictions and remains a key principle in personal injury litigation. Over the years, application of the eggshell skull rule has been subject to debate, with some commentators arguing for a more limited application of the rule.
Use in Personal Injury Jurisprudence
The eggshell skull rule may sound foreign to the uninitiated, but a little investigation into this legal doctrine may save you from a lot of sleepless nights if you have suffered a severe injury in a car accident or other personal injury event. As we noted above, the eggshell skull rule holds that a defendant is liable for injuries caused to a plaintiff even if the severity of plaintiff’s injuries is out of all proportion to his/her vulnerability.
For example, suppose that an elderly woman who is suffering from osteoporosis gets hit by a train. Because of an existing health condition, the woman’s bones shatter upon impact with the train, suffering compound fractures and other trauma. The injuries that the woman suffers are substantially worse than they would have been on a healthy person because of the osteoporosis. Under the "eggshell plaintiff" rule, the train operator is liable for all of the woman’s injuries, horrible as they are. In this case, it does not matter if the train operator acted negligently; what matters is that he or she caused an injury to another person. The only thing that the eggshell skull rule cares about is the link between the defendant’s negligence (in this case, the acts of the train operator) and the injury that the plaintiff suffers.
The only exception to the eggshell skull rule applies when the defendant can show that the injury would have happened regardless of any negligence on his or her part. In the above train example, the train operator will be held legally responsible for the woman’s injuries as long as the operator was negligent in some way. Here again, strictly speaking, it does not matter what the nature of the negligence was. So even if the train operator was speeding, or distracted while driving the train, the operator will be held liable for the woman’s injuries. The only question the jury will consider is whether the train operator’s actions caused the woman’s injuries. If the jury finds that the operator’s actions were a direct cause of the woman’s injuries, then the operator will be held liable.
A classic example of eggshell skull liability in personal injury cases is when an employee suffers injuries in a work-related incident due to an employer’s negligence, and is later found to have an underlying genetic condition that causes those injuries to be substantially greater than they might have been, had the employee not suffered from the genetic condition. In these cases, the employer is liable for the employee’s injuries, even though his or her genetics exacerbated the effects of those injuries.
Significance of the Eggshell Skull Rule
The eggshell skull rule serves a critical purpose in ensuring that plaintiffs receive fair compensation when their injuries are exacerbated by pre-existing conditions or unique circumstances. Let’s explore some of the reasons why the eggshell skull rule is important.
Allow for Full Recovery
First and foremost, the eggshell skull rule ensures that plaintiffs receive full compensation for their individual injuries. Imagine if every plaintiff would have to prove that any harm they suffer in an accident would have occurred regardless of any injury caused by another party. Say you have a plaintiff with a back injury that just happened to have back problems prior to the accident. Without the eggshell skull rule, the defendant could argue that the back issues would have returned with or without the accident.
Fairness
Second, the eggshell skull rule promotes fairness by holding defendants accountable for more than just minor injuries. The rule alters the traditional "but for" cause-in-fact standard by allowing plaintiffs to recover even in cases where the plaintiff’s injury would have likely occurred. Otherwise, these plaintiffs would receive nothing at all. After all, no one can predict the future. The eggshell skull rule acknowledges this fact, allowing defendants to be held accountable for all their actions.
Encourages prevention
It is easy to think of the eggshell skull rule as an extreme form of strict liability. With the eggshell skull rule in place, contractors know that they need to build the safest bridges and highways that they can. Doctors understand that their patients are unique, and may have issues more or less acute than the average person. Manufacturers know that they need to design safer products and test them for potential harm to others. In short, the eggshell skull rule prevents those in power from expecting victims to suffer for their negligence or carelessness.
Possible Criticisms and Challenges
The eggshell skull rule is not without its challenges and criticisms. For instance, some argue that it may lead to unjust outcomes—such as when a defendant is held liable for defects that are not alleged—and that doing so may prove detrimental to society as a whole. Moreover, it is feared that the rule is too harsh on defendants, penalizing those who have caused harm irrespective of the extent. Additional criticism is leveled at the rule’s perceived tendency to inflate damages awards.
Concerns about fairness are predicated on the notion that the rule can lead to outcomes that are disproportionate to the defendant’s culpability and intentional. In other words, seeking damages for injuries suffered by another person, if you’ve caused them to a small degree, may be unfair. For example, an employer who has failed to provide workers with the proper safety gear and is then sued by an injured worker as a result may be ordered to pay a much higher award than he or she expected . This is because even slight negligence can be enough to trigger a large award in damages under the rule, and for most employers, they simply cannot afford such a severe penalty.
Concerns of the rule being unduly burdensome on defendants are present as well. For example, a defendant’s insurance policy may not cover the full extent of his liability. This is a possibility that is especially likely to arise when exemplary or punitive damages are sought, something that is readily seen as inconsistent with public policy. Additionally, the potential for inflated damages amounts as a result of the rule may mean a lot in lawsuits, which can lead to frivolous actions being filed in court as plaintiffs are emboldened by the notion that they may be able to recover a larger damage award than they deserve.
In conclusion, while the eggshell skull rule is an important part of personal injury case law, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. In some situations, the rule may not apply.
Example and Application in Case Law
In the seminal case of Mortensen v. Mortensen (1982), the Minnesota Supreme Court explored the concept that the tortious injury to a plaintiff is not to be measured by the extent of damage which the defendant could have foreseen. This case involved a minor child who was supportably injured by a non-defendant in a motor vehicle accident. The child suffered from cerebral palsy, which was previously unknown to the defendant, thereby raising the issue of whether the defendant should be held liable for a congenital condition.
The case before the court established that causation of injury is not necessary for tort liability, and a defendant who has negligently caused an injury to a plaintiff is liable for injuries that would have happened without the negligence as long as those injuries are part of the same injury as that caused by the negligence. An injury is considered part of an injury when it would have occurred without the negligence of the defendant. In the court’s opinion, the rule that liability is measured by the result of the wrong as a whole avoids a "battle of medical experts concerning the ultimate cause of the unusual condition."
Another noteworthy case is In re Fletcher (1984), in which a three-year-old David Fletcher fell from a bridge into a stream below and landed on his head, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. He sued the owner of the bridge, and a jury awarded him a substantial settlement for his injuries. Twenty years later, he experienced psychotic episodes, which were causally related to his fall off the bridge. As the evidence showed that the defendant had been warned before the accident that the bridge was defective and dangerous, the defendants argued that the award was excessive because of the eggshell skull doctrine, forcing the issue to go before the judge.
The judge determined that the defendant should not be relieved of his responsibility for having created the risk to David, and that the severity of the injury as a result of the fall was solely a result of the defendant’s negligence. The award was neither unduly large nor the result of passion or prejudice, and the court refused to remit the verdict.
For a different perspective, in Cummings v. Hoffa (2019), the plaintiff, then 62, was rear-ended at an intersection while she waited for oncoming traffic to pass. She found that the defendant did not stop since he was adjusting his cell phone. The plaintiff was hospitalized for eight days after the accident, and upon release was placed in a rehabilitation facility. She continued to experience pain in her lower back.
The plaintiff’s injuries were viewed as exacerbated Kentucky Pain and Occupational Health (KPOH) center visits. She had received significant pre-existing treatment in the recent past, and the KPOH center found that she had seven "notable" pre-existing conditions, including obesity, spinal disc changes, and narrowing and degeneration of her facet joints, sacroiliac joints, and vertebrae. She had also undergone 20 lumbar steroid injections in the past for the same complaints. Nonetheless, the jury awarded her $1.2 million in economic, pain and suffering, and inconveniences damages.
The Court of Appeals found that the jury inappropriately disregarded admissible evidence in ruling in the plaintiff’s favor, and it ruled that the award must be re-evaluated. The award was vacated, and the case was returned to the lower court for recalculation on remand.
Conclusion: The Future of the Eggshell Skull Rule
The Eggshell Skull rule aligns with a broader judicial trend toward protective jurisprudence, particularly in personal injury law. As our society grapples with evolving understandings of mental health and personalized medicine, the judiciary may be presented with even more nuanced applications of the rule. For instance, if standards of psychiatric care shift to call for individualized treatment, courts may grapple with claims that when such treatment is not followed, they should not allow recovery under the eggshell skull rule for the resulting harm, since there are no guarantees of success in any event. Moreover, the eggshell skull rule may have a complicating role in the emerging field of 3D printing. If an emerging science can replicate anatomical structures that could replace damaged limbs or organs for individual patients, might courts say that the use of such structures is required or at least a reduction of potential damages? Courts will have to consider how the eggshell skull rule interacts with evolving medical science, especially given the current rate of progress in areas like genomic medicine.
Other questions related to liability may arise in the near future , such as whether the personal injury field’s broad understanding of the eggshell skull rule applies in medical malpractice cases. While most jurisdictions have maintained separate negligence standards for caregivers, one could envision a jurisdiction attempting to apply eggshell skull-type standards as a means to limit malpractic practices that are otherwise difficult to target. For example, if a patient with full knowledge of risks, but not full comprehension of them, consents to a certain treatment, should the eggshell skull rule apply when subsequent injuries arise from that treatment, through perfect hindsight? Courts might choose to uphold the eggshell skull rule to put the burden of misinterpretation on the physician who is expected to know, rather than the patient.
These potential future developments in the application of the eggshell skull rule highlight its utility to shield plaintiffs from overly burdensome negligence standards. But as is always the case in torts, there are always mixed outcomes: this same utility should caution judges and lawmakers from applying eggshell skull-type reasoning too broadly, in a manner that limits or otherwise undermines legitimate defenses to negligence actions. As the field of personal injury law knows well, the facts matter, and considering all facets of a situation is the best means of validly assessing liability.