Work through an eggshell-plaintiff proximate-cause question with examiner-style analysis on unforeseeable severity, preexisting conditions, and full-damages liability.
Derrick glanced down at his phone for two seconds while driving through downtown traffic and lightly rear-ended Paula at a stoplight. The impact dented Paula's bumper but looked minor. Paula, however, had an unknown brittle-bone disorder that made her unusually susceptible to fracture. The collision caused multiple spinal fractures, a lengthy hospitalization, and permanent mobility limits. Derrick argues that even if he was negligent, he should be liable only for the sort of soft-tissue injuries an ordinary driver would foresee from a low-speed collision, not for Paula's catastrophic injuries caused by her hidden condition. Paula sues Derrick for negligence.
Yes. Derrick is liable for Paula's full injuries because the eggshell-plaintiff rule makes a negligent defendant responsible for unforeseeably severe harm caused by the plaintiff's preexisting vulnerability. A negligent defendant takes the plaintiff as the defendant finds the plaintiff. Under the eggshell-plaintiff rule, once some bodily injury to the plaintiff is a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the actual injury even if the severity is magnified by a preexisting weakness, illness, or unusual susceptibility. Proximate cause focuses on whether the general type of harm was foreseeable, not whether the precise extent of damages or the plaintiff's vulnerability was foreseeable. The rule therefore distinguishes unforeseeable extent from unforeseeable type: an unexpectedly severe physical injury does not cut off liability when physical impact was itself a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.
Is Derrick liable for the full extent of Paula's severe injuries even though her extraordinary susceptibility made the harm far worse than a reasonable driver would have expected?
A negligent defendant takes the plaintiff as the defendant finds the plaintiff. Under the eggshell-plaintiff rule, once some bodily injury to the plaintiff is a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the actual injury even if the severity is magnified by a preexisting weakness, illness, or unusual susceptibility. Proximate cause focuses on whether the general type of harm was foreseeable, not whether the precise extent of damages or the plaintiff's vulnerability was foreseeable. The rule therefore distinguishes unforeseeable extent from unforeseeable type: an unexpectedly severe physical injury does not cut off liability when physical impact was itself a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.
Derrick's negligence created the foreseeable risk of a car accident causing bodily injury to the driver he hit. That is enough to establish the relevant type of harm…