I understand that the perpetrator of a criminal assault must take his victim
as he finds him - the so-called eggshell skull rule.

Does this apply to tort? Specifically, a trespasser who commits damage to property in a particularly malicious or frightening way he may be liable to
the claimant for aggravated damages, above the actual financial loss.
However, if the the claimant is particularly vulnerable, because of illness or constitution for instance, can they claim greater damages for greater fear or distress than a person of ordinary robustness? Or can the trespasser only be responsible for what the effect would be on an average person?

This is a (somewhat vaguely described) real case, and the answer seems to me (provisionally) that the judge may or may not take this into account. But I would be interested in anyone's opinion or experience.



--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/01/2024 09:55, Roger Hayter wrote:

I understand that the perpetrator of a criminal assault must take his victim as he finds him - the so-called eggshell skull rule.

Does this apply to tort? Specifically, a trespasser who commits damage to property in a particularly malicious or frightening way he may be liable to the claimant for aggravated damages, above the actual financial loss. However, if the the claimant is particularly vulnerable, because of illness or
constitution for instance, can they claim greater damages for greater fear or distress than a person of ordinary robustness? Or can the trespasser only be responsible for what the effect would be on an average person?

This is a (somewhat vaguely described) real case, and the answer seems to me (provisionally) that the judge may or may not take this into account. But I would be interested in anyone's opinion or experience.

The eggshell skull principle means that if the victim (eg of an act of negligence or an assault) suffers a much greater injury than the average
person would have done, they are entitled to claim compensation for that injury.

It's injury rather than fear, anxiety etc. It would have to be a
medically diagnosable condition. It wouldn't be called "aggravated
damages", merely damages.

I think a good illustration of this concept is Page v Smith. A very
minor car accident from which the victim would normally be expected to
recover very quickly, but the victim developed M.E. (aka chronic fatigue syndrome) and produced medical evidence to say that this was directly
caused by the car accident. Consequently the damages were for the
disability resulting from the chronic fatigue syndrome.

You might of course say that it's implausible that a minor car shunt
could cause chronic fatigue syndrome. You could call a different expert
to say that it's implausible and that the claimed symptoms aren't
genuine. But the court is entitled to prefer the evidence of either
expert or even make findings that are halfway between the two extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_v_Smith

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/01/2024 09:55, Roger Hayter wrote:

I understand that the perpetrator of a criminal assault must take his victim as he finds him - the so-called eggshell skull rule.

Does that apply if you are acting in self defence? (Criminal and civil liability.)

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

I understand that the perpetrator of a criminal assault must take his victim as he finds him - the so-called eggshell skull rule.

Does this apply to tort? Specifically, a trespasser who commits damage to property in a particularly malicious or frightening way he may be liable to the claimant for aggravated damages, above the actual financial loss. However, if the the claimant is particularly vulnerable, because of illness or
constitution for instance, can they claim greater damages for greater fear or distress than a person of ordinary robustness? Or can the trespasser only be responsible for what the effect would be on an average person?

This is a (somewhat vaguely described) real case, and the answer seems to me (provisionally) that the judge may or may not take this into account. But I would be interested in anyone's opinion or experience.

Certainly, in criminal cases, those who, for example ‘mug’ the proverbial little old lady ( not intended to be disrespectful to women or older
people- I’m not exactly a spring chicken) seem to be treated more harshly than those who mug someone younger.

On that basis, it would seem logical in awarding / claiming damages, the vulnerability and therefore the impact of any wrong doing should be
considered.

That said, in extreme cases, if say, someone is seriously injured to the
point their quality of life / ability to work is impaired, I can believe
some would an injury is more serious for a younger victim. I am NOT
saying I agree with that view but I can believe it would be argued.
Certainly in the case of medical negligence cases for children, huge sums
are sometimes awarded to ensure life long care can be provided etc

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)