Abstract
The psycholegal and medicolegal assessment of injury-related physical and psychological impairments and disabilities is fraught with difficulties, including assessing for physical and psychological risk factors. In the injury litigation context, in Canada, issues related to pre-injury physical and psychological risk factors are best captured by the thin skull and crumbling skull rules. A review of court cases in which these rules have been considered suggests that the rules are not applied consistently. This inconsistency in the application of these rules has contributed to conflicting determinations of cause and damages across trial court, appeal court, and Supreme Court cases. This article provides operational definitions of the thin skull and crumbling skull rules, presents a case that involves a series of court decisions that exemplify the difficulties associated with the application of these rules, and provides recommendations for more effective application of the two rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Athey v. Leonati. (1996). 3 S.C.R. 458.
Cocchiarella, L., & Lord, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Master the AMA guides (5th ed., pp. 327–341). Chicago: American Medical Association.
Duckworth, M. P., & Iezzi, T. (2010). Physical injuries, pain, and psychological trauma: Pathways to disability. Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 241–253.
Duckworth, M. D., Iezzi, T., & O’Donohue, W. T. (Eds.). (2008). Motor vehicle collisions: Medical, psychosocial, and legal consequences. New York: Elsevier/Academic.
Iezzi, T. (2008). Medicolegal issues associated with motor vehicle collisions: A psychological perspective. In M. P. Duckworth, T. Iezzi, & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Motor vehicle collisions: Medical, psychosocial, and legal consequences (pp. 503–539). New York: Elsevier/Academic.
McInnes, M. (1996–1997). Causation in tort law: Back to basics at the Supreme Court of Canada. Alberta Law Review, 35, 1013–1034.
McQuade, J. S. (2001). The eggshell skull rule and related problems in recovery for mental harm in the law of torts. Campbell Law Review, 24, 1–45.
Moore, S. R., & Matrundola, B. (2007). The Supreme Court of Canada and the law of causation. 3rd Annual Update Personal Injury Law and Practice. Osgoode Professional Development CLE.
Nash, K., & Moore, S. R. (2010). The Supreme Court of Canada and the law of causation revisited again. 6th Annual Update Personal Injury Law and Practice. Osgoode Professional Development CLE.
R. v. Mohan. (1994). 2 S.C.R. 9, 1994 CanLII 80 (S.C.C.).
Salas v. United States. (1997). 974 F. Supp. 202, 209 (W.D.N.Y.).
Schenke, S. R., & Lambe, D. (2008). Medicolegal issues associated with motor vehicle collisions: A legal perspective. In M. P. Duckworth, T. Iezzi, & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Motor vehicle collisions: Medical, psychosocial, and legal consequences (pp. 421–465). New York: Elsevier/Academic.
Touchard v. Slemco Electric Foundation. (2000). 99–3577 (La. 10/17/00); 769 So. 2d 1200, 1202.
Young, G., & Kane, A. W. (2007). Causality in psychology and law. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 13–47). New York: Springer.
Conflict of Interest
The first author has conducted psycholegal assessments primarily for plaintiff lawyers. The third author has represented both plaintiffs and defendants.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Iezzi, T., Duckworth, M.P. & Schenke, S.R. To Crack or Crumble: Use of the Thin Skull and Crumbling Skull Rules. Psychol. Inj. and Law 6, 156–159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9157-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9157-8