Foreseeability of harm and the fragility of a plaintiff are two concepts that play an important role in personal injury cases.

The issue of liability itself, as well as the extent of that liability, turns on these two concepts.

Indeed, as we will discuss below, the “eggshell plaintiff” rule renders a defendant liable for the full extent of a plaintiff’s injuries—even if those injuries were not foreseeable and even if the damage was far more extensive than could possibly have been foreseen.

Foreseeability

In personal injury and tort cases, the legal concept of foreseeability is pivotal to the question of liability. It defines a defendant’s duty and proximate cause.

According to the Florida courts, foreseeability determines whether a defendant’s conduct created a risk of harm to others as well as whether, and to what extent, the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

As a general rule, everyone owes every other individual the duty to behave as a reasonable person would. When litigating tort cases, such as personal injury cases, the focus is on whether the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff but breached that duty by acting unreasonably — either intentionally or because of carelessness (i.e., negligence).

To prove one’s case, it is necessary to prove four essential elements:

• Duty
• Breach
• Causation
• Damages

The concept of foreseeability is concerned with both duty and causation.

To impose a legal duty on a defendant, his conduct must create a foreseeable risk of injury to others. To be clear, the defendant need not foresee every conceivable risk his conduct could create. Rather, only general, reasonable foresight is required to create a duty.

For example, if a defendant runs the red light, it is foreseeable that he could hit a pedestrian or another car moving through the intersection. Applying reasonable foresight to our example, drivers have a duty to not run the red light because it is foreseeable that doing so would cause a risk to others on the road.

When it comes to the legal concept of foreseeability and causation, however, things get a lot more difficult.

Proximate cause for a negligence case is often referred to as “but for” causation. In other words, “but for” defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Proximate cause focuses on “whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” To prove a negligence case, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions directly caused or substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries so that it can be said that “but for” defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would not have been injured.

Understanding foreseeability and the role it plays in determining a defendant’s liability in a personal injury case is not easy. Until you consult with an experienced Florida personal injury attorney, you will not be able to accurately assess its impact on the facts of your case.

We now turn to the issue of the fragility of the plaintiff.

Fragile Plaintiffs and the “Eggshell Plaintiff” Rule. What’s it all about?

Sometimes the injuries a plaintiff suffers far exceed what may have been “foreseeable” injury.

For example, if the defendant kicks the plaintiff in the leg, it may be foreseeable that the plaintiff could suffer bruises. But what happens if that same plaintiff happens to have cancer or a tumor in that spot, and the kick causes the plaintiff to lose that leg or causes his death?

While the defendant may not have been able to foresee that a kick in the leg could trigger life-threatening or extensive injuries, should an injured plaintiff not recover for the full extent of his injuries just because he had a preexisting medical condition?

The law believes not. Hence the legal theory that you “take your plaintiff as you find him” and the “eggshell plaintiff” rule (also called the “eggshell skull rule”).

The “eggshell plaintiff” rule makes defendants responsible for the full extent of the injuries inflicted on a plaintiff – even if that plaintiff is fragile or has preexisting medical, physical, or emotional illnesses, disabilities, or injuries that make him (or her) more susceptible than the average person.

The “eggshell plaintiff” rule is based on the public policy belief that even though the defendant could not have foreseen the harm that would result because he could not know that the plaintiff was more susceptible than the average person, nevertheless, it is only fair that the defendant bears the burden of the full extent of a plaintiff’s injuries since it was the defendant who caused those injuries in the first place.

The “eggshell plaintiff” exception is not easy to prove. But it is available for those with preexisting medical conditions to allow them to receive the full compensation they deserve. Work with a Florida personal injury lawyer to find out if this rule applies to you.

John Fagan is Here to Help.

John Fagan and his experienced team are dedicated to helping those who have been injured due to the negligence of another. Contact us for your free consultation now, or call our firm at 777-JOHN. We serve clients throughout Florida. Our main office is in Orange Park. We have consulting offices in Palatka, Middleburg, Keystone, Starke, Gainesville, and Ocala.