The Supreme Court stated that a person suffering mental injury as a result of another's negligence must prove that such a mental injury would have occurred in a person of ordinary fortitude.The fortitude of an ordinary person is held by the same court to be irrelevant in circumstances where carelessness caused physical injury and loss.What common law principle offers a valid criticism of the Supreme Court's position of the law with respect to involuntarily acquired mental illness?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The thin skull principle, also known as the "eggshell skull rule," criticizes the Supreme Court's position by stating that a defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means if a person has a pre-existing condition that makes them more susceptible to injury, whether physical or mental, the defendant is still fully liable for the damages caused, even if the injuries are more severe than what would be expected in a person of ordinary fortitude.

The Supreme Court Stated That a Person Suffering Mental Injury