What is the thin skull doctrine and crumbling skull doctrine?

Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada


The following excerpt is from Reid v. Joy, 1999 CanLII 19035 (NL CA):

In Athey v. Leonati, Major, J., explains the difference between the thin skull and crumbling skull doctrines. He commented that where there was a measurable risk a plaintiff's pre-existing condition would detrimentally affect the plaintiff in the future regardless of the defendant's negligence, the damage award would be reduced accordingly - the crumbling skull doctrine. In our case I have arrived at the conclusion the preexisting condition, the degenerative spine condition, did not constitute a measurable risk for the future. The relevancy of the pre-existing condition was never a serious consideration at trial and was presumed so inconsequential the trial judge was able to find the appellant had "no degenerative disc disease" at all. No doubt the slip and fall accident aggravated the appellant's back condition at the time, but there was no medical evidence the slip and fall accident, separate and distinct from the pre-existing degenerative condition in her lower back, was a factor in the chronic pain syndrome or was likely, on its own, to have caused such types of pain in the future. The evidence of the expert witnesses establishes the vehicle collision caused the neck injury; there was no evidence to show there was a measurable risk the degenerative condition would eventually produce a chronic pain syndrome. The chronic pain syndrome was the consequence of the motor vehicle collision and in the absence of a measurable risk from the pre-existing condition there are no grounds to reduce the award.

There being no determination a measurable risk existed that the pre-existing degenerative back condition would progress to the stage of a chronic pain syndrome, the matter is resolved by simple application of the thin skull rule, As already stated, the pre-existing back condition may have been aggravated by the slip and fall accident, but the respondents must take the appellant as they find her. Athey v. Leonati stands for the position that if the respondent's negligence exacerbated the existing condition and caused it to manifest into a chronic pain syndrome, then the respondents are the cause of the chronic pain syndrome and therefore fully liable. I am still of the view however, that the medical evidence of the expert witnesses does not establish the slip and fall accident is in any way a contributory cause of the chronic pain syndrome.

Other Questions


What is the equitable doctrine of advancement and resulting trust as they apply between spouses? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
Does the doctrine of abuse of process have any specific requirements? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
Does the unconscionability doctrine require a resulting improvident bargain? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the standard of review for mixed fact and law? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the law in Canada on equitable treatment in the assessment process? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the law governing lateral transfers of solicitors to a law firm acting against their client? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the standard of appellate review in a family law case? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
Does a party have a prima facie right to see documents in a civil proceeding? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the quantum of an 18 months' notice period for an employee who has been unjustified dismissal? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the Bourque and Thiessen approaches to determining whether a plaintiff was injured as a result of the collision between two defendants? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.