The eggshell skull rule is a legal principle applied in civil litigation, where the offender is held liable for all injuries, even those intensified due to the peculiar conditions of the injured person. This principle holds the defendant responsible for injuries caused to a person, irrespective of the victim’s delicate physical condition.
Origin and Application of the Eggshell Skull Rule
The eggshell skull rule finds its origins in the 1891 Vosburg v. Putney case in Wisconsin, US, where the injury aggravated due to an unexpected kick. Subsequently, this principle has been applied in various cases, including a pregnant woman who sustained severe shock leading to premature birth.
Case Study: Jyoti Devi’s Medical Negligence Case
In 2005, Jyoti Devi underwent an appendix removal surgery in a hospital in Himachal Pradesh, which resulted in a foreign body left in her abdomen, leading to prolonged pain and medical issues. Despite winning compensation initially, subsequent appeals reduced the compensation awarded, citing the eggshell skull rule.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court restored the original compensation awarded by the district consumer forum to Jyoti Devi, emphasizing that the eggshell skull rule does not apply in her case. The court highlighted that there was no indication of pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition in Jyoti’s case, justifying the restoration of the compensation.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What is the eggshell skull rule?
- A) A legal principle applied in criminal litigation
- B) A principle holding offenders liable for injuries regardless of the victim’s physical condition
- C) A rule stating that victims with delicate skulls are exempt from compensation
- D) A doctrine exclusively applicable in medical malpractice cases
- In which case did the eggshell skull rule originate?
- A) Roe v. Wade
- B) Brown v. Board of Education
- C) Vosburg v. Putney
- D) Marbury v. Madison
- What was the consequence of the eggshell skull rule in Jyoti Devi’s case?
- A) The compensation awarded by the district consumer forum was upheld
- B) The compensation awarded by the district consumer forum was reduced
- C) The compensation awarded by the state consumer forum was increased
- D) The compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was reduced