If you have been injured in a slip and fall or motor vehicle accident in a part of your body that had already been injured you may still have the right to commence a claim.
In some instances, a new injury can occur to the same body part or, the existing injury can be made worse (exacerbated) by the incident. In both situations you may have the right to make a claim.
There are primarily two legal principles that can come into play when considering whether a claim would be successful when there are pre-existing injuries. They are known as the "thin skulled doctrine" and "the crumbling skull doctrine".
The "thin skull" doctrine outlines that the party responsible for wrongful actions is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injuries, even if they are unexpectedly severe due to a pre-existing condition. For instance, if a person bumps into someone and causes a minor fall, a typical individual might suffer only a minor injury. However, if the person has a condition making them unusually susceptible to severe injuries—such as a bad back—the wrongdoer is still liable for the significant damages incurred, regardless of the victim's heightened vulnerability.
The "crumbling skull doctrine" is a defence to a claim. Essentially, this doctrine suggests that the defendant was not the cause of, or a sufficient cause of, the injury but, rather, that the pre-existing condition was going to get worse in any event. In these cases, the incident was not a cause of the injury although there may be some rom to argue that the incident accelerated the condition.
These rules extend beyond physical injuries to include psychological or psychiatric harm. Personal injury lawyers often invoke the thin skulled rule to support claims involving chronic pain or psychological trauma, especially when the plaintiff's underlying vulnerabilities make them more susceptible to severe effects from an accident.
Personal injury lawyers rely heavily on expert testimonies to establish the extent of liability and ensure fair compensation for the injuries sustained. Cases involving thin skulled plaintiffs can be complex, particularly because insurance adjusters and jurors might struggle with the concept of inherent vulnerability. Having knowledgeable medical or psychological experts is crucial to effectively convey the impact of the plaintiff's vulnerabilities to the court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
