How Knowledge of Foreseeable Injuries Relates To Pre-existing Conditions

Sometimes one foolish assumption becomes the primary link between foreseeable injuries and a pre-existing condition. Take an example of a driver that drove at his usual speed, just a bit above the speed limit. He assumed that the traffic would not be slowing down, because it had never done so before.

Unfortunately, he had made an incorrect assumption. The traffic was coming to a stop. Consequently, he plowed right into another vehicle.

As could have been predicted, the other car’s driver did emerge with some foreseeable injuries, namely a couple broken ribs. To the surprise of the responsible driver, the sole occupant of the damaged car could also claim possible harm to a body part that related to a pre-existing condition. That body part was the driver’s head.

Because it was obvious that the responsible driver’s action would harm the innocent occupant of the car in front of him, he could be held accountable for all consequences from any sustained injury. His insurance could be held accountable for covering the cost of test to a device that doctors had implanted in the injured driver’s body. That implanted device served as the only known treatment for the driver’s pre-existing condition.

The team of personal injury lawyers in Leduc that defended the responsible driver could not have known that, owing to one period of the injured victim’s past medical history, she had a deteriorating condition. Her hearing was going downhill. Had they been aware of that fact, that team could have made it clear that the insurance would only cover those injuries that worsened that deteriorating condition.

How does a thick skull case differ from a thin skull case?

According to the law, in a thick skull case, the plaintiff’s condition, while present, did not cause a deterioration of any system. In a thin skull case, the reverse is true. Yet this example highlights the difficulties that face any lawyer that seeks to win a case on the basis of the thickness or thinness of the boney structure over the client’s brain.

Still, in both cases, no lawyer can seek to have an injured client brought to a better position than the one that he or she occupied before the accident. In other words, the treatment for the foreseen and unforeseen injuries should not be required to eliminate the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition. Yet, depending on the thickness of the plaintiff’s “skull,” that treatment may be required to correct any damage to the method being used to treat the problem that had existed since a moment in time, one that had passed well before the accident.