Smith V Leech Brain Case Study

person and might die or suffers extraordinary damage compared to a normal person that may only suffers from headaches or mild bruising from the exact hit. Regardless of the condition of the victim, this rule clearly stated that the defendant must take full responsibility and liable for injuries he or she caused. The tortfeaser is still liable even though the victim’s condition and the extent of injuries are unforeseeable. In addition, the defendant cannot claim that the plaintiff’s injury would be less if the plaintiff did not have unusual thin skull or weak heart. Moreover, according to the egg shell skull rule principle, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds him. To summarize, if the defendants breach his duty and cause foreseeable
It applies to any weakness or predisposition of the plaintiff to a particular injury or illness regardless of the defendant’s knowledge. An illustration of this rule can be found in the following case which are; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962) and Robinson v Post office (1974) 1 WLR 1176. The case of Smith v Leech Brain is about a galvanizer who is the plaintiff’s husband and work at the defendant’s company. His job is to lift articles into a tank of a molten metal via a crane. The plaintiff’s husband was burnt on the lip by a piece of molten metal because of the defendant’s negligence. However, the plaintiff’s husband actually had a pre-cancerous condition and the burn caused a cancerous growth. As a result, he eventually died three years later. The court held that the defendant was liable because the burn was foreseeable damage for the plaintiff’s negligence. It does not matter to what extent of the damage or injuries as long as the type of damage or physical injury is foreseeable. In this case, the burn resulted to the death of the plaintiff and therefore the defendant was liable for his death. The defendant was liable for the full consequences including the cancer even though the healthy person would not developed cancer in the same circumstances. Lord Parker CJ stated that the test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that he would die. The
The plaintiff had suffered with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) condition when he get involved in a minor accident because of the defendant’s negligent. As a result, the plaintiff cannot return to work as a teacher because the collision had triggered his ME to become more worse and permanent. However in this case, It is foreseeable that the victim will suffered physical injury which the victim is not the not suffered. The court held that it does not matter to establish that psychiatric injury was foreseeable as long as it is reasonably foresee that the defendant’s conduct would expose the plaintiff to personal injury whether physical or psychiatric. The defendants cannot argue that the normal person would not suffer the injury incurred by the plaintiffs because he must take the victim as he finds him according to eggshell skull rule. The eggshell skull rule also has been extended to eggshell personality. This rule is applied in the case of Malcolm v Broadhurst. The defendant negligent’s driving had caused injuries to the plaintiff and the husband. Due to the accident, the plaintiff’s husband’s personality become unpredictable and sometimes violent because of the injuries. The plaintiff had pre-existing nervous disturbance had been affected by the changes in her husband’s behavior. As a result, she could not work for seven months. Therefore the court held that the plaintiff’s