Wallace v. Thibodeau - New Brunswick Court of Appeal Provides Analysis on the "Thin-Skull Doctirne"

Newsflash for you law nerds out there.In Wallace v. Thibodeau, [2008]NBCA 78,Chief Justice Drapeau of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal provided someinteresting analysis and discussion of the interplay between the Thin Skull and Crumbling Skull Doctrines in the context of a personal injury claim. It is the most detailed analysis by any Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia.

The Thin Skull and Crumbling Skull Doctrines are very important legal concepts that come into play in most personal injury claims, when the injured personhas a pre-existing injury or condition. Justice Drapeau made two important points: 1) he emphasized that the pre-existing condition must have been "degenerative" at the time of the accident for the crumbling skull doctrine to apply and 2) the onus is on the defendant to prove the condition was "degenerative".

This case was argued by the Joe Cantini of the New Brunswick office ofmy firm.The Defendant was represented by Peter Rogers, of McInness Cooper (Halifax/Saint John).

This case is currently on leave for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for other reasons. You can access a copy of the Court of Appeal decisioninWallace v. Thibodeauby clicking here.