Does the "crumbling skull" rule require that a pre-existing condition was symptomatic at the time of the tortious act?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Vintila v. Kirkwood, 2016 BCSC 930 (CanLII):
In Krause v. Gill et al, 2006 BCSC 1459, the court found that the “crumbling skull” rule does not require that the pre-existing condition be symptomatic immediately before the tortious act in question:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
If a plaintiff has a crumbling skull, does the crumbling skull rule entitle her to additional damages? (British Columbia, Canada)
How does the thin skull rule affect the crumbling skull rule? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have a thin skull and crumbling skull? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff is a "crumbling skull" rather than a thin skull? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the "thin skull" and "crumbling skull" doctrines? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff has a thin skull or crumbling skull injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for apportioning liability between tortious and non-tortious causes? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the conditions of a conditional discharge for common assault? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to damages under the Crumbling skull doctrine? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident case, is a plaintiff entitled to a "crumbling skull" analysis? (British Columbia, Canada)
