Abuse and the Eggshell Skull Rule

It suddenly occurred to me, having written “a difference between a victim and a survivor”, that there is a subjectivity as to who can legitimately claim to have been abused. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I just found out about the eggshell skull rule.

It is worth knowing. This is a technical description of the eggshell skull rule:

“Doctrine that holds the defendant responsible for the unforeseeable and unusual reactions of the plaintiff to the willful or negligent wrongdoing of the defendant [civil wrong]. If the defendant wrongfully commits against the plaintiff without a full defense, the defendant is liable for any damages that are magnified by the plaintiff’s peculiar characteristics.”[1]

A simple explanation is this:

“The rule states that, in a wrongful case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense of the seriousness of any injury caused to him.”[2]

In more common parlance, the eggshell skull rule dictates that if a person is struck on the head by a forcefully inflicted feather and sustains an injury, because their skull is made of eggshell, the blame rests entirely at the feet of the person wielding the pen. Isn’t it scary?

If we hurt someone, whether we mean to or not, and they suffer an unpredictable and especially rare injury, we are liable.

This rule is an accepted principle of common law. This law is the type that is practiced in courts where a person can be sued for damages. It’s not the kind of court that sends you to jail.

What does this have to do with abuse? A lot, actually.

It means that we cannot tell a person that there was not enough force or reason to claim abuse. It means that abuse is now defined not so much by the act done against the person, but by the injuries they suffered.

They may be particularly vulnerable people, and the damage caused would not have caused a more resilient person to suffer such damage.

The good thing about this principle of law is that it protects the most vulnerable people. The good news for the victim or survivor of abuse is that they do not need to prove that the level of abuse was unacceptable. They have the proof in their being.

As I understand it, if a person has PTSD, and did not have it beforehand, and a single event triggered it, then there, in that event, is the (potential) tort: ​​liability. mistaken. And this rule probably applies well beyond this specific example. (Being a lawyer myself, I am writing this simply to convey the existence of the rule.)

What can be said is that we must be very careful about what we call a false accusation of a true accusation.

There is a theoretical case of the woman who on separate occasions appears to speak of a sexual encounter, on the one hand, and claims to have been sexually assaulted, on the other. Some people would say it’s a false accusation, because she talked about it in blatant terms. Perhaps this was part of some strange (though not uncommon) coping mechanism. It may not seem right. Later, as she reflects, she acknowledges the mental and emotional toll. She is depressed, desperate, unable to function. She may be diagnosed with PTSD. We can feel sorry for the man, from the way she initially spoke. But that doesn’t change the fact that the damage has already been done. This is just a theoretical example. I know how much discussion this example could generate, but my prayer is that we just reflect on this rule and its unequivocal power for vulnerable people.

I appreciate that there is a wide range of views on this topic.

I also have strong points of view, and they change a bit when I am exposed to new information. I am thankful for the eggshell skull rule, because it provides protection for those who have been inadvertently or deliberately injured.

It doesn’t matter what you did or didn’t do. What matters is the effect. This rule is designed to make us think deeply about as we interact with other people.

It is designed to motivate us to take care of people, because what better motivation than to protect oneself?

You could call the law a donkey, but it is still the law, and it is only wisdom to follow it.

[1] Source: Cornell Law School

[2] Source: Wikipedia.