After an accident, injured victims may be reluctant to pursue a personal injury claim. It’s natural to question if you really have a valid claim worth fighting for damages. This is especially true in situations where victims have a prior injury or ongoing medical issue. Some may suspect that any aggravation of a pre-existing injury during an accident weakens a dangerous premises case; this is not necessarily true.
Canadian courts recognize that people enter public and private spaces with different medical histories, and therefore assess liability based on the actual harm caused by unsafe conditions and negligent parties instead of what might have happened to an “average” person with a pre-existing condition.
To do this fairly, courts rely on two established legal principles: the thin skull rule and the crumbling skull rule. While they sound similar, they apply in very different situations.
What Is the Thin Skull Rule?
The thin skull rule applies when a person has a pre-existing condition that is stable and not expected to worsen on its own. Under this rule, the property owner or manager is fully responsible for the injuries they cause, even if those injuries are more severe than what another person might have suffered under the same circumstances.
To put this more simply, property owners must take injured individuals as they find them. The liability they face is not reduced just because the victim was more vulnerable to injury.
How the Thin Skull Rule Is Applied
Imagine someone previously suffered from a knee injury following a sports accident. They completed treatment for this injury years ago, remain active currently, and only experience occasional soreness. The injury is considered stable since there is no expectation that the knee will further deteriorate.
While dining at a restaurant, this person slips and falls on an unmarked wet area left behind after a spill was mopped up. The fall causes significant bodily harm, including serious damage to the previously injured knee. Surgery is required, and it’s likely this person will need extensive rehabilitation.
A person without a previous knee injury may still have gotten hurt during this fall, but likely not to the same extent. Under the thin skull rule, the property owner remains fully liable for the injuries caused by the unsafe condition. Because the pre-existing injury was stable, the severity of the outcome does not reduce the property owner’s responsibility or damages owed.
What Is the Crumbling Skull Rule?
The crumbling skull rule applies in cases where someone has an unstable or degenerative condition that was already worsening and would have continued to regress regardless of the accident. In these situations, the property owner is not responsible for the inevitable progression of the condition itself.
However, this does not eliminate liability entirely. A negligent property owner may still be responsible for any additional injuries or damages that were caused by the incident.
How the Crumbling Skull Rule Is Applied
Consider a renter who has progressive osteoarthritis in their hip. Their medical history shows that ongoing degeneration, increasing pain, and hip surgery are all but certain at some point in the future.
This individual slips on an outdoor staircase with a faulty handrail at their apartment complex. The slippery conditions and the handrail were both left unaddressed for an extended period, long enough that the property owner should have reasonably known about and rectified both.
The fall worsens the renter’s hip condition and accelerates the need for surgery. Medical evidence confirms that the condition was already declining and would have continued to wane over time, even without the fall.
Under the crumbling skull rule, the property owner is not responsible for the underlying condition or its inevitable progression. However, they are still liable for the additional harm and damages caused by the fall.
Building a Case After Injury with a Pre-Existing Condition
Both of these principles have the same takeaway: having a pre-existing condition does not excuse a property owner from maintaining reasonably safe premises. Canadian personal injury law is concerned with fairness and accountability, so the applied responsibility is based on the harm actually caused.
While pre-existing conditions do not prevent a claim, they can make dangerous premises cases more complex. Strong evidence is even more critical in cases involving pre-existing conditions. This evidence can include:
- Medical records and physician notes showing the condition before and after the accident
- Documentation of current symptoms, limitations, and required treatment
- Honest and complete disclosure of prior injuries and health issues
- Evidence from the scene, such as surveillance footage, photographs, witness statements, and maintenance or inspection records
Contact Stephens & Holman
Dangerous premises claims involving pre-existing conditions require careful legal analysis and detailed evidence. Stephens & Holman has experience navigating the complexities of these cases and advocating for clients whose injuries have been worsened by unsafe property conditions.
If you have been injured and are unsure how a prior condition may affect your claim, it’s time to speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help you understand your rights and options. Reach out today to learn more or to schedule an appointment.