What Is the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule?
The Eggshell Plaintiff Rule refers to the defendant’s obligation to compensate the plaintiff for an injury suffered despite the defendant not being aware that the plaintiff was acting in any way that would make them more susceptible to harm. Simply put, if the defendant did something that caused an injury in general, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, even if the plaintiff may be more sensitive to injury than the average person or even if the plaintiff has a pre-existing condition. Basically, you take your plaintiff as you find him and, if you cause him an injury, you have to pay for it.
It is almost a rule of common sense that hurting someone with a pre-existing condition is likely to cause more damage and a greater expense to the tortfeasor. Similarly, the law seems to realize that a plaintiff who is in good health is more likely to recover from an injury than a plaintiff with a chronic health issue will. That being said, if the defendant has a reasonable belief that the plaintiff is a healthy person and then attempts to inflict an injury on the plaintiff, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for the injury, whether or not the defendant knew that the plaintiff was in less than perfect health . One of the most common scenarios for this kind of situation is a striking injury case. If in inflicts an injury by hitting a plaintiff, even if the plaintiff was relatively healthy at the time, if the plaintiff is more susceptible to more severe injuries the defendant is still going to be liable. Essentially, the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule states that the defendant takes the plaintiff in his or her condition at the time that the tortious act results in the injury.
The Eggshell Plaintiff Rule is very important in personal injury litigation because it specifically allows the defendant to be liable for the actions that they carried out without knowledge of any of the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions. The defendant cannot be heard to say that the plaintiff had a condition that would cause the plaintiff injury, and that the defendant therefore should not have to compensate the plaintiff for those injuries. In order to be applicable, the plaintiff must prove that an ordinary member of the population would not have suffered the same type of injury.
History of the Eggshell Rule
The origins of the eggshell plaintiff rule are relatively hard to trace. However, for most of the history of Anglo-American tort law, a plaintiff’s preexisting condition was more or less a bar to recovery. Even in the leading case still regarded as the leading case on the issue, the defendant was originally granted summary judgment. Fox v. Bushey, 211 Mass. 222, 225 (Mass. 1912); see also Capron v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 716 F. Supp. 769, 773 (W.D. Va. 1989), aff’d sub nom. Capron v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 892 F.2d 1144 (4th Cir. 1989).
It was not until the rule first began spreading in the late 1800s, relying on the notion that "a wrongdoer can no more justify injury to one who has a defective structure than he could wrongfully disable one who had a sound structure," that it really began to develop. Turner v. Perini Corp., 899 F. Supp. 851, 859 (D. Mass. 1995) (quoting Blanchard v. Solomon, 162 N.E. 228, 230 (Mass. 1928)); see also Macey v. Rozbicki, 128 A.2d 647, 651 (N.J. 1957). Not only had the rule begun to spread, but the defenses of this rule were also largely abandoned at this time.
An early case epitomizing this new paradigm where a plaintiff’s preexisting condition is not a bar to recovery was Walsh v. New York, in which the defendant wrongfully ejected the plaintiff from a freight train into a pond containing ice cold water in the middle of winter, causing her to suffer an abortion and serious long-term effects from frostbite suffered to both of her legs. 58 A.D. 328, 331-32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1901). There, the lower court had refused to allow the jury to consider the speed at which the train was traveling or the phone call that the operator had neglected to make to his superiors to report the injury, favoring the defendant. Id. The appellate court overturned the verdict, holding that a woman who "was pregnant, [and] being forced out of the train into a body of cold water, was likely to suffer to a greater extent from such an injury than would an individual in ordinary condition," and that "[t]he driver of the train should have considered the case of a woman of [plaintiff]’s character when determining in what manner he should have performed his duties." Id. In short, the court declared it was "the defendant’s duty to take notice of the circumstances in which the injury was occasioned." Id.; see also Lehigh, Fisher & Ashley v. New York & Penn. Co., 250 Pa. 241, 245 (Pa. 1915) (plaintiff-cabinetmaker in fire accidentally set by defendant-trolley car inspector allowed recovery for atrophy of arm prior to fire when defendant was aware of plaintiff-camera worker’s occupation).
In this environment, it was asserted that "[w]hen injury is inflicted which requires treatment which the wrongdoer knew or ought to have known was more than nominal and so not trifling, and expense is necessarily incurred, there should be no recoverable loss of time or expenses in providing the treatment ‘which had to be furnished regardless of the liability.’" J. Ranger Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. D. Bertschy Corp., 304 N.Y.S.2d 721, 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969) (quoting MacKenzie v. NY, NH & H.R. Co., 63 Conn. 331, 339 (Conn. 1894)). This interjected the idea that damages are the net loss caused by a wrongdoer and that this calculation should account for any additional damages required to treat a plaintiff’s injuries. An elaboration on this principle is that the "eggshell doctrine measures damages with reference to the harmful effects which actually result from a breach of duty." Enable Ins. Risk Mgt. Servs., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 266 P.3d 653, 665 (Cal. 2011) (quoting Graczyk v. Graczyk, 962 P.2d 796, 797 (Colo. 1998)).
Thus, the eggshell plaintiff rule recognizes a defendant’s duty to foresee how their actions might affect all plaintiffs, including those with a preexisting condition that is more vulnerable to harm. And more importantly, the rule recognizes that it is the defendant’s duty to take notice of these effects in order to conduct themselves in a way that will not cause injury to a plaintiff’s preexisting condition.
The Rule in Modern Day
The eggshell plaintiff rule has been applied in contemporary legal cases, and in the 21st century, the rule remains relevant. The majority of courts have agreed that any pre-existing mental or physical condition that is exacerbated by a later injury or incident is compensable. The eggshell plaintiff rule extends to methods of treatment for prior illnesses or injuries, if the treatment is necessitated by a later injury. However, defendants’ liability is limited to any aggravation of the original condition. The eggshell plaintiff rule is not applicable under circumstances where the negligence of the defendant was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.
However, courts have disagreed on the impact of evidence of comparative fault. In Massachusetts, nothing in the comparative fault statute prohibits the plaintiff from recovering damages for exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, meaning that the plaintiff may have some recovery even in a situation where the defendant’s actions were not the sole cause of the damages. Other states, such as Indiana, hold that even in cases of emotional pain and suffering, "there must be some evidence to establish that the defendant caused the emotional distress."
Generally, the eggshell plaintiff rule only applies to plaintiffs with a permanent impairment or condition. Courts have held that plaintiffs with no permanent condition cannot claim aggravation of a pre-existing condition. If a plaintiff alleges permanent impairment as a result of an injury but fails to show permanent impairment due to a pre-existing condition, courts have held inapplicable the eggshell plaintiff rule. Likewise, liabilities only applied to the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, rather than for another distinct injury, such as in cases where a cerebral palsy patient undergoes additional surgical procedures.
Although the eggshell plaintiff rule has been applied in more recent years, some courts have expressed hesitation in applying the rule. For example, even if the plaintiff has shown a compensable claim, the plaintiff must also show that his or her conduct has not contributed to his or her damages, even if there is an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. Thus, the defendant may be successful in showing that the plaintiff contributed to the damages, such as in circumstances where the plaintiff lied about pre-existing conditions to obtain benefits. Additionally, courts have cited caution in applying the eggshell plaintiff rule, because it allows for recovery on behalf of persons who would not normally be entitled to it. Furthermore, courts have been hesitant in applying the eggshell plaintiff rule to cases of claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Cases Relating to the Eggshell Plaintiff
1. Wolski v. Tvekla
In Wolski v. Tvekla, 387 Pa. 453 (1956), the plaintiff fell on a wet floor in the defendant’s restaurant. The plaintiff had deformed tendons from Sludge/Traction Heels (STH) from five prior years of employment prior to the incident. After the fall, the plaintiff suffered dislocations, torn ligaments and cartilage destruction requiring surgery and years of continued medical treatment. At trial, the plaintiff claimed the floor was slippery and dangerous and that no warning signs were posted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The trial judge added that the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages alone. The defendants appealed the new trial order and it was granted. The defendants contended that the liability of defendants was based upon a breach of a duty regarding the condition of their premises and not upon any negligence in regard to plaintiff’s particular condition. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and further noted that the liability of the defendants was based upon whether or not they were negligent and not whether the plaintiff was careless in the past. The Court further enunciated the rule affirming the eggshell plaintiff doctrine that "a tortfeasor is responsible for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of his wrongful act even though he may have had no reason to foresee the particular injurious result."
2. Pelham v. Muirhead
In Pelham v. Muirhead, 2014 PA Super 297, 106 A.3d 1194, appeals denied, 1131,1132 EDA 2014 (Pa. 5/15/15), the plaintiffs, minor children of a bicyclist killed in a hit-and-run accident, brought a survival action for damages they suffered as a result of their father’s death. The trial court judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the two minor children did not suffer damages as a result of the death. On appeal, the Superior Court overturned the lower court’s decision. The Court noted that a parent’s negligence can give rise to recovery by the children if the children suffer from a compensable injury due to the parent’s death. The Court found that because the children suffered from some sort of patrimonial loss, the mere fact that they could not prove specific damages to those interests did not bar the recovery.
3. McLaughlin v. Kossuth
In McLaughlin v. Kossuth, 176 Pa. Super. 215 (1955), cert. denied, 474 Pa. 585 (1968), the plaintiff and her boyfriend were driving his car and approaching an intersection in Pittsburgh during the early morning hours with clear weather and visibility conditions. As they approached the intersection, the plaintiff saw the defendants’ automobile parked on the wrong side of the street. The plaintiff’s boyfriend attempted to squeeze into the available space between the defendants’ parked car and the nearby telephone pole; however, the plaintiff’s boyfriend was unable to fit through the opening. The plaintiff, in turn, was admitted to the hospital with aspiration pneumonia and spent forty days there. The plaintiff sued for the personal injuries she had sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court reduced. The Defendants appealed and the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The plaintiff was given a new trial on the issue of damages only. Plaintiff’s appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court resulted in a holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by granting a new trial on the issue of damages only.
Criticism and Problem Areas of the Rule
While the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule has developed thorough, it is by no means above criticism. In fact, the rule has seen its share of arguments over whether or not it is in the best interest of injury victims – and insurance companies – alike. One such criticism is that the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule overlooks the fact that a seemingly "perfectly" healthy person was negligent enough to cause a serious accident in the first place. This means that, to some critics, a defendant could be held 100% responsible for a victim’s injuries even if negligence played a limited or minor role in the situation, which could be viewed as fundamentally unfair to defendants. Another criticism is that the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule rewards injuries that are "de minimis," or so insignificant that the law does not consider them. Under the rule, even if an injury would otherwise be considered insignificant , if the defendant’s actions triggered the injury, they could potentially be held 100% liable. For example, if a person is already diagnosed with early stage Alzheimer’s and is involved in a collision, they could be awarded damages for the additional memory loss, as minor memory loss brought on by a jarring collision would still be considered as a valid reason for holding the defendant accountable. Finally, some argue that the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule creates an inverse incentive when it comes to settlement. Because defendants are unable to account for a person’s pre-existing conditions or limitations, insurance companies may be less likely to offer a lump sum settlement, as they could be unsure of the extent of damages. While it is the plaintiff’s right to sue and expect full compensation, this argument suggests defendants may be able to better defend themselves from a potential judge or jury decision by taking a lawsuit to trial.
Potential Real-World Effects of the Rule
The Eggshell Plaintiff Rule poses distinct considerations for both sides of a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiffs generally benefit from the rule, while it uniquely restricts defendants’ ability to mitigate their exposure to damages—thereby providing a continued incentive to settle cases at early stages.
The rule provides plaintiffs with a larger "insurance policy" than they may realize if they have special needs or are unusually susceptible to injury. For example, if a plaintiff suffers a broken leg and is left with a permanent limp, the defendant must pay for the limp regardless of whether that limp was foreseeable or not. In addition, if defendants succeed in shifting the blame on to another party, they may find the eggshell plaintiff’s rule still keeps plaintiffs’ total damages high if the defendant was still at fault, regardless of how unlikely the plaintiff would have been to suffer any injury from the incident: A plaintiff’s following a single course of action or continuing a long, established practice may also limit a defendant’s ability to argue for a reduction of damages. In an auto accident case, for example, if a plaintiff was driving without a seatbelt, that plaintiff won’t be barred from recovery merely because their injuries were aggravated by lack of a seatbelt.
Defendants should be aware of the Eggshel Plaintiff Rule’s pre-incident medical history. It can be difficult to prove whether or not the plaintiff had any underlying conditions that made them more susceptible to the injury at hand. However, such proof could potentially limit the plaintiff’s available damages. For instance, consider the following scenario:
Although this second plaintiff may have also suffered a broken ankle, her underlying medical condition makes her more susceptible to injury, creating uniquely higher expenses. An experienced trial attorney can seek medical documentation to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s medical history and apply the Eggshel Plaintiff Rule accordingly.
Future of the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule
The New York Court of Appeals decision in Toure v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. (Toure IV), reh’g denied, No. 200, 2018, 2019 WL 5390924 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2019), should herald the death knell for the eggshell plaintiff rule.
Although the court in Toure IV declined to adopt an exclusionary standard that would bar the recovery of damages caused by a pre-existing or pre-incident injury for emotional harm and pain and suffering, the court strongly questioned the need for such a rule, and instead directed the legislature to "consider the wisdom of continuing this doctrine."
The court reasoned that "under the current framework a defendant is held liable for the consequences of a pre-existing condition only if the condition may be exacerbated by some aggravation or exacerbation of the plaintiff’s prior injuries," which the court viewed as "significantly undercut[ting] the purpose of tort law because it serves to penalize a defendant whose allegedly negligent actions caused only a minor aggravation or exacerbation of a plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries while completely absolving a defendant whose negligent actions caused a relatively more severe aggravation or exacerbation of such a pre-existing condition." The court rejected the contention that the rule holds tortfeasors accountable for the full extent of an injury, not just for the aggravation or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, noting that "the rule appears to revert back to a pre-‘eggshell plaintiff’ type of analysis, albeit a weaker version."
In other words, in the court’s view, the rule is not doing what it was created to do, i.e., penalize tortfeasors for taking advantage of the vulnerability of a tort victim with a previous impairment. Thus, the court signaled that the rule may have outlived its usefulness.
Moreover, in responding to policy arguments the court stated that courts have been reluctant to apply the eggshell plaintiff rule to emotional injury and pain and suffering claims, and that if "when faced with applying the rule to the facts of this case, the court chooses to apply a precluding standard, concerns about the availability of insurance for plaintiffs or the cost of premiums for defendants would be better addressed by the legislature . "
The court also faulted the lower courts for not being precise in their language and application of the rule. The court noted that the phrase "take your victim as you find him" is a mischaracterization of the eggshell plaintiff rule, which, properly understood, permits recovery where the tortious conduct caused an aggravation or exacerbation of an injury even if it may have resulted in an injury, in whole or in part, from pre-existing weakness. The court found that the "taking your victim as you find him" phrase makes it difficult to understand the rule and properly apply it. Instead, "the rule should operate as a tort-specific take your victim as you find him" rule.
The court’s characterization "suggests that the eggshell plaintiff rule should be applied to any tortious injury regardless of whether the injury is physical or nonphysical," i.e., covering both the types of damages ordinarily recognized in personal injury suits: emotional harm and pain and suffering.
The court’s characteristic of the eggshell plaintiff rule, whether intended or not, provides guidance to plaintiff lawyers in how to frame their causes of action in order to properly plead claims for emotional harm and pain and suffering.
The court’s opinion about the rule’s "current framework" and its identification of the correct manner to apply the rule may result in cases being brought and decided at the appellate level where previously eggshell plaintiff rule questions were resolved at the trial level. Such litigation may ultimately provide a forum where the court may formally lay the eggshell plaintiff rule to rest.
In sum, although the court in Toure IV did not eliminate the eggshell plaintiff rule, it questioned the utility of the rule, repeatedly signaled the legislature to address the rule, and provided guidance to courts on how to analyze the rule going forward.
