It suddenly occurred to me, having written “a difference between a victim and a survivor,” that there is subjectivity about who can legitimately claim that they have been abused. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I just learned about the eggshell skull rule.
It is worth knowing. This is a technical description of the eggshell skull rule:
“Doctrine holding a defendant liable for the plaintiff’s unpredictable and unusual reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional wrongdoing [civil wrong]. If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a full defense, the defendant is liable for any damage that is magnified by the plaintiff’s peculiar characteristics. “[1]
A simpler explanation is this:
“The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense of the seriousness of any injury that has been caused.”[2]
In more common parlance, the eggshell skull rule dictates that if a person is hit on the head by a forcefully inflicted feather and sustains an injury, because their skull is made of eggshell, the blame lies. entirely at the feet of the person wielding the pen. Scary isn’t it?
If we hurt someone, seriously or not, and they suffer an unforeseeable and especially rare injury, we are responsible.
This rule is an accepted principle in common law. This law is the one that is practiced in the courts where a person can be sued for damages. It is not the type of court that sends you to jail.
What does this have to do with abuse? In fact, a lot.
It means that we cannot tell a person that there was insufficient force or reason to claim abuse. It means that abuse is now defined not so much by the act carried out against the person, but by the injuries they suffered.
They can be particularly vulnerable people, and the damage caused would not have caused a more resistant person to suffer such damage.
The good thing about this principle of law is that it protects the most vulnerable people. The good news for the victim or survivor of abuse is that they do not need to show that the level of abuse was unacceptable. They have the proof in their being.
As I understand it, if a person has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and did not have it beforehand, and a single event triggered it, there, in that event, is the (potential) grievance: the wrong civilian. And this rule probably applies well beyond this specific example. (Since I am not a lawyer, I am writing this simply to convey the existence of the rule.)
What can be said is that we must be very careful about what we call a false accusation of a true accusation.
There is a theoretical case of women who, on different occasions, seem to be talking about a sexual encounter, on the one hand, and claim to have been sexually assaulted, on the other. Some people would say that it is a false accusation, because she spoke of it in blatant terms. Perhaps this was part of some strange (though not uncommon) coping mechanism. It may not seem correct. Later, as you reflect, you acknowledge the mental and emotional toll. She is depressed, desperate, unable to function. You may be diagnosed with PTSD. We can feel sorry for the man, for the way he initially spoke. But it doesn’t change the fact that the damage has already been done. This is just a theoretical example. I know how much discussion this example could generate, but my prayer is that we simply reflect on this rule and its unmistakable power for vulnerable people.
I appreciate that there is a wide range of opinions on this topic.
I have strong points of view too, and they change a bit when exposed to new information. I am grateful for the eggshell skull rule, because it provides protection to those who have been inadvertently or deliberately injured.
It doesn’t matter what you did or didn’t do. What matters is the effect. This rule is designed to make us think deeply excuse me we interact with other people.
It is designed to motivate us to take care of people, because what better motivation than to protect oneself?
You could call the law a donkey, but it is still the law, and it is wise to obey.
[1] Source: Cornell Law School
[2] Source: Wikipedia.
