Is a defendant liable for a plaintiff’s somatic complaints as a result of the abuse she suffered as a child?

In arriving at this conclusion, I have considered the plaintiff’s vulnerability to developing somatic complaints because of the childhood abuse that she suffered. The defendants must take their victim as they find her. This is a classic “thin skull” situation as described in Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 34, and distinguished from the “crumbling skull” doctrine: 34 … The “crumbling skull” doctrine is an awkward label for a fairly simple idea. It is named after the well-known “thin skull” rule, which makes the tortfeasor liable for the plaintiff’s injuries even if the injuries are unexpectedly severe owing to a pre-existing condition. The tortfeasor must take his or her victim as the tortfeasor finds the victim, and is therefore liable even though the plaintiff’s losses are more dramatic than they would be for the average person. 35 The so-called “crumbling skull” rule simply recognizes that the pre-existing condition was inherent in the plaintiff’s “original position”. The defendant need not put the plaintiff in a position better than his or her original position. …