Lexplug logoLexplug

Schafer v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
831 P.2d 897 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A negligent defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm caused, even if the victim had a pre-existing physical frailty or susceptibility that made the injuries unforeseeably severe. A defendant must take their victim as they find them.


Facts:

  • On January 15, 1988, Larry Schafer, who was under the influence of alcohol and drugs, struck pedestrian Shirley Hoffman with his vehicle.
  • Hoffman sustained numerous severe injuries, including a fractured vertebra, a fractured femur, torn knee cartilage, and a concussion with intracranial bleeding.
  • Following the accident, Hoffman developed thrombophlebitis (blood clots) in her injured leg, which delayed necessary knee surgery for nearly a year.
  • Two months before the accident, in November 1987, Hoffman had received treatment for pain in her right knee.
  • Medical records from 1978 showed that Hoffman had previously complained of intermittent low back pain and knee discomfort.
  • During legal proceedings, evidence was introduced suggesting Hoffman had some knee degeneration due to normal aging and a potential predisposition to causalgia, a condition involving extreme pain.

Procedural Posture:

  • Shirley Hoffman filed a negligence action against Larry Schafer in a Colorado district court (trial court).
  • At trial, Schafer admitted negligence but contested the extent of Hoffman's injuries and whether his conduct was willful and wanton.
  • Over Schafer's objection, the trial court gave the jury a 'thin skull' instruction regarding damages.
  • The jury returned a verdict for Hoffman in the amount of $715,000, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
  • Schafer, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • Schafer, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado (highest state court) to review the decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a 'thin skull' jury instruction, which prevents a jury from reducing damages due to a plaintiff's pre-existing physical frailties or susceptibility to injury, a proper statement of law when the defendant introduces evidence of such frailties to argue for reduced liability?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Vollack

Yes. The 'thin skull' jury instruction is a proper statement of law because a tortfeasor must take their victim as they find them. The court reasoned that the 'thin skull' or 'eggshell skull' doctrine is a fundamental principle of tort law, holding a defendant liable for all consequences resulting from their negligence, even if the victim's pre-existing condition or susceptibility to injury makes the harm greater than a reasonable person would have foreseen. The doctrine is not limited to specifically identified, pre-existing bodily conditions but also applies when a plaintiff is merely predisposed or more susceptible to injury. Because Schafer introduced evidence of Hoffman’s prior ailments and frailties to suggest he should not be liable for the full extent of her injuries, the instruction was appropriate to ensure the jury understood that Schafer could not reduce his liability by 'spotlighting the physical frailties of the injured party.'



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and broadens the application of the 'thin skull' doctrine in tort law. By explicitly extending the doctrine beyond diagnosed pre-existing conditions to include general frailties and susceptibilities, the court prevents defendants from using a plaintiff's past medical history or natural predispositions to diminish their responsibility for harm caused. This reinforces the principle that the foreseeability of the extent of an injury is irrelevant once the defendant's negligence has been established as the cause of that injury. The ruling provides strong protection for vulnerable plaintiffs and clarifies for lower courts that a 'thin skull' instruction is warranted whenever a defendant attempts to attribute a portion of the plaintiff's suffering to their underlying physical state.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Schafer v. Hoffman (1992) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Schafer v. Hoffman