They've helped me do what I feel was justifiable for me and my family to get closure... And I thank them. 
-
V. Jordan
Mother of a Wrongful Death Victim
Thin Skull Rule & Eggshell Skull
Dallas Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses The Thin Skull & Eggshell Skull Rules
The thin skull rule, also known as the eggshell skull rule, holds a defendant responsible for the consequences of his actions and/or inaction that cause injury to another. The thin skull rule is used in situations where the victim sustains an unusually high degree of injury due to a pre-existing medical condition or susceptibility.
The defendant is responsible for the injury caused to the plaintiff whether or not the defendant knew that the plaintiff had a pre-existing medical condition or was more likely to be harmed than a healthy plaintiff. The thin skull rule requires the defendant to take their victim as they find them, otherwise a defendant would be able to rely on the plaintiff’s own vulnerability to avoid liability for injury to the Plaintiff.
On many occasions, potential clients have come to my office concerned that their pre-existing medical issues will prohibit recovery for an injury suffered in an automobile accident or while at work.
Grossman Law Offices has more than twenty years of experience handling cases in which our clients have pre-existing conditions that have exacerbated injuries received after an accident. Grossman Law Offices will work with your prior medical providers to establish a link between your pre-existing medical condition or susceptibility and the injury caused by the defendant.
Don’t allow a pre-existing medical condition or susceptibility hamper your ability to recover damages for the injuries you received in an accident. Contact Grossman Law Offices and speak with one of the firm’s attorneys to assist you with your thin skull rule or eggshell rule claim.
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
$41,000.00
$13,666.00
$135.00
Plaintiff alleged that an insurance carrier unfairly denied a claim, resulting from a non-fatal fire in an airplane. Our attorneys satisfactorily resolved the claim without the need for litigation.
$1,500,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
Recovery for motorcyclist who suffered a back injury in an 18-wheeler accident.
$200,000.00
$80,000.00
$5,709.00
Our firm was hired to pursue a claim against a negligent following a rear-end car accident. The plaintiff was driving her vehicle in traffic on I-30 in Dallas, TX when the defendant approached from behind and collided with her vehicle, pushing it into the vehicle in front of her. The plaintiff sustained disc compression and herniation at C3-4 which required surgery to rectify. The defendant's ultimately accepted liability but heavily disputed the damages. Under threat of litigation, the defendants raised their offer. Our attorneys continued to aggressively negotiate on behalf of our client and a satisfactory result was eventually obtained.
$225,000.00
$95,000.00
$2,500.00
(policy limits + secondary claim) Recovery for victim who suffered knee and back injury due to a car accident.
$48,800.00
$15,000.00
$1,188.00
Recovery for passenger of Uninsured Driver Injured in Head-On Crash.
$100,000.00
$40,000.00
$2,500.00
Recovery for client injured in an automobile accident.
$100,000.00
$33,000.00
$500.00
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered soft-tissue injuries to knee, neck, and back.
$70,000.00
$23,100.00
$600.00
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
$226,000.00
$84,000.00
$5,500.00
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
$125,000.00
$30,000.00
$2,135.00