Does the crumbling skull doctrine apply to a plaintiff?

The Appellant also had a pre-existing condition and the thin skull as opposed to the crumbling skull doctrine is in issue. In Athey v. Leonati [1996] 3 SCR 458, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), Mr. Justice Major explains: The respondents argued that the plaintiff was predisposed to disc herniation and that this is therefore a case when the crumbling skull rule applies. The "crumbling skull" doctrine is an awkward label for a fairly simple idea. It is named after the well-known "thin skull" rule which makes the tortfeasor liable for the plaintiff's injuries even if the injuries are unexpectedly severe owing to a pre-existing condition. The tortfeasor must take his or her victim as the tortfeasor finds the victim, and is therefore liable even though the plaintiff's losses are more drastic than they would be for the average person. The so called crumbling skull rule simply recognizes that the pre-existing condition was inherent in the plaintiff's original position. The defendant need not put the plaintiff in a better position than his or her original position.