This qualification of the test for legal causation called into question the continuing vitality of the traditional “thin skull” rule, first announced in Dulieu v. White and Sons, [1901] 2 K.B. 669 at 679: If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damage that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.
"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.