Talk:Eggshell skull

Applied to Self-defense?

I heard that when applied to the use of force in self-defense, the eggshell skull doctrine indicates that those with known existing conditions may justify a greater use of force at an earlier point in an altercation. For example, if one knows that a blow to the head would could reasonably be expected to be lethal, the use of lethal force to prevent such a blow might be legally justified, when otherwise it would be an unreasonable use. Seems reasonable, though I couldn't find a good citation on this, so I post it here. ~ TheWama (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I've just re- jigged some of the article and formatted it into sections to make it more readable. I've also highlighted the difference between this and the criminal maxim from Blaue. I believe I'm correct in saying that the eggshell skull (by that name) refers to the rule in tort law. HJ Mitchell (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Strict statutory liability

How does Eggshell skull apply outside tort, the example that comes to mind is occupier's liability. Does the standard exist throughout common law systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.164.204 (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tender headed

This new stub probably could be a useful redirect here. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Does it apply here, as an alternate meaning, nickname, etc? At first blush they look to be completely unrelated terms. Electric Wombat (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The example on intervening causes

I don't think the example on intervening causes fits with the eggshell skull rule. It sounds more like proximate cause than the eggshell skull rule, but I didn't want to change the example because I don't know how intervening causes fits in with the eggshell skull rule