"Thin Skull" Damages into "Crumbling Skull" Damages - Bogoroch ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-34- existing psychiatric condition 37 . Rowbotham J. distinguishes Athey, “where the accident triggered a latent condition and which was found to be the entire cause of the damage” 38 . 37 Ibid. at 12-13. 38 Ibid. at 14.
-35- Rowbotham J. distinguishes between the plaintiff’s physical condition, which he finds is fully attributable to the accident and which, in the absence of the somatization disorder, would have resolved by 1997, and her psychiatric condition, which he holds is only compensable to the extent that it was aggravated by the accidents. Rowbotham J. awards damages to the plaintiff “taking <strong>into</strong> account (her) pre-existing somatization disorder” 39 but does not allocate the global damage award between the physical injuries (which would have been fully compensated) and the aggravation of the pre-existing psychiatric disorder (which would have been compensated only to the extent that it was aggravated by the accidents). In Athey, the Court states that a crumbling skull plaintiff’s pre-existing condition is one that would necessarily cause debilitating effects in the future. This justifies the reduction in damages awarded to a crumbling skull plaintiff in contrast to a thin skull plaintiff, who may have had a pre-existing condition or vulnerability but, absent the tortious act, would not have suffered any detrimental effects as a result and is therefore entitled to compensation to the full extent of her damages. In the absence of a finding that there is a material risk that the pre-existing condition would have caused debilitating effects in the future, there is no basis for the characterization of a plaintiff as a crumbling skull plaintiff and no basis for a reduction in damages awarded to the plaintiff. 39 Ibid. at 15.
Page 1 and 2: The Canadian Institute Advanced For
Page 3 and 4: 4. The Implications of the Ontario
Page 5 and 6: -5- Ontario Court of Appeal’s dec
Page 7 and 8: -7- causation in tort law, as follo
Page 9 and 10: -9- With respect to the presence of
Page 11 and 12: -11- The Supreme Court of Canada di
Page 13 and 14: -13- causation when determining whe
Page 15 and 16: -15- 2. Judicial Treatment of Athey
Page 17 and 18: contribution and indemnity from one
Page 19 and 20: -19- (3) Brown v. Canadian Tire Cor
Page 21 and 22: -21- The medical evidence at trial
Page 23 and 24: -23- 4. Summary of the Implications
Page 25 and 26: -25- a thin skull is not considered
Page 27 and 28: -27- that the defendant created a r
Page 29 and 30: -29- was, in the defendant’s subm
Page 31 and 32: -31- accordingly. This would not re
Page 33: -33- accidents, it was generally ag

"Thin Skull" Damages into "Crumbling Skull" Damages - Bogoroch ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?