蛋殼腦袋規則

出自 MBA智库百科(https://wiki.mbalib.com/)

本條目包含過多不是中文的內容，歡迎協助翻譯。 若已有相當內容譯為中文，可逕自去除本模板。

蛋殼腦袋規則（Eggshell Skull Principle），又稱薄頭蓋骨原理（Thin skull priciple）

　　"蛋殼腦袋"規則，是指某人有一個像"雞蛋殼那樣薄的腦袋",通常不會對正常人造成傷害的打擊卻會造成對該人的致命損害。為確定責任，保護受害人，在判斷行為與損害之間是否存在因果關係時,應認為存在因果關係並且加害人有"過失"。作出這一判斷的最重要原因是，存在損害事實且加害人沒有抗辯事由。在"蛋殼腦袋"規則中，應當適用過錯責任，而不是公平責任。

　　如果你輕輕地颳了一個人一巴掌，而碰巧他的腦袋軟如蛋殼，結果他頭破血流，最終斃命，那麼你就必須對他的死負責。法律要求我們必須接受每個個體的特征，即使受害人的體質不正常或過於脆弱，如頭蓋骨薄如蛋殼，嫌犯還是要對他的行為負責。

• 實例一

　　美國一八九一年的案例Vosburg v.Putney。一個十一歲的小孩，踢了一個十四歲少年的大腿幾下。這個十四歲的少年的腳碰巧有舊患，不堪一擊，結果成了一個跛腳。小孩辯解說，他並沒有要嚴重傷害他的意圖，誰料到那麼三兩下的腳踢可以讓人殘廢？可是法官不同意。法官認為，傷害超出預計，並不是一個可以減輕罪行的一個理由。況且，傷人的行為是在學校發生的，而不是戶外的草場，小孩的行為是明顯不當的。小孩必須向對方作出賠償。

• 實例二

　　1962年發生了這麼一件傷人案。兩個員工起了爭執，其中一個將一個燒紅的鐵條拋向對方，燒傷了他的皮膚。後來，傷者的傷口慢慢惡化，轉為癌症，最終死亡。辯方辯解說：傷者原本已經擁有容易患癌的體質，這是攻擊者始料不及的，因此，攻擊者不能對傷者的死負責。法官不同意。法官憑著蛋殼腦袋理論，認為攻擊者所估計的致傷程度跟案情是不相關的。關鍵是，攻擊者當初根本不該打人。既然打了人，就必須對打人的一切連帶後果負責。

• 實例三

　　不久前，新加坡有多位演員為了宣傳新片，坐上開蓬車游街。突然間，有個摩托騎士向演員們丟臭蛋。不巧的是，臭蛋擊中了女主角的眼睛，並刺破了她的眼角膜。腐爛的蛋汁隨即流入眼球，造成嚴重傷害。後來經過急救，雖然不至於瞎眼，視力的完全恢復仍需一段時間。如果傷人者被指控，法官絕對不會接受“誰料到臭蛋可以嚴重致傷眼睛”的理由。當摩托騎士向演員拋臭蛋的那一刻，他就應當作出最壞的打算，並準備為任何的嚴重的後果負責。

　　此法律的目的是要警惕世人，必須假設每個人都是豆腐做的，任何傷人的舉動，都可能導致最嚴重的傷害，也可能招來最嚴重的懲罰。受害者的任何舊患，原有的內傷，都不能用作開脫罪名的理由。動手前，請三思。

This rule holds one liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if

1. such damages were not reasonably foreseeable, or 2. the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.

In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.

The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts - intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases - as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim - if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability.

The thin skull rule is not to be confused with the related crumbling skull rule in which the plaintiff suffers from a detrimental position (from a prior injury, for instance) pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort. In the "crumbling skull" rule, the prior condition is only to be considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new injury arising from the present tort - as a means of apportioning damages in such a way that the defendant would not be liable for placing the plaintiff in a better position than they were in prior to the present tort.

In the case of Smith v. Leech Brain & Co., an employee in a factory was splashed with molten metal. The metal burned him on his lip, which happened to be premalignant tissue. The judge held that as long as the initial injury was foreseeable, the defendant was liable for all the harm.

In 1891, the Wisconsin Supreme Court came to a similar result in Vosburg v. Putney. In that case, an 11 year old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school. It turned out that the 14 year-old was recovering from a previous injury. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, and as it occurred during school and not on the playground, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.

In Benn v. Thomas the appellate court determined that the eggshell rule should have been applied to a case in which a man had a heart attack and died after being bruised in the chest during a rear-end car accident.