Is a defendant liable for damage suffered due to a crumbling skull?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Harmati v. Williams, 2016 BCSC 2199 (CanLII):

Alternatively, a defendant is not liable for damage suffered due to a “crumbling skull” which recognizes that the plaintiff’s current injuries were inherent in their original position (Athey para. 35). A defendant is not liable for an injury that would have happened regardless of their action. As recently stated by Russell J.: “the defendants will not be held responsible for putting the plaintiff in a better position than he would have been in had the accident not occurred.” (Mckenzie v. Lloyd, 2016 BCSC 1745 at para. 139).

Other Questions


Is a defendant liable for damages that are not related to crumbling skull injuries? (British Columbia, Canada)
If a plaintiff has a crumbling skull, does the crumbling skull rule entitle her to additional damages? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a defendant liable for damages that are not for crumbling skull injuries? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff liable for any additional damage caused by a crumbling skull? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff who suffered from crumbling skull syndrome? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to damages under the Crumbling skull doctrine? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to recover damages from a defendant for damage caused to his back? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of damages for pain and suffering suffered by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a defendant be held liable for foreseeable damages for breach of contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff has a thin skull or crumbling skull injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.