Can you exemplify that? I still do not really understand the meaning of it. ThanksIt means that the defendant is not entitled to make assumptions about the victim. Any characteristics which the victim happens to have must be taken into account in the judgement, whether the defendant could reasonably have known about them or not.
http://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/161 The webpage at the link goes on the discuss the meaning in depth: it is worth reading.Dulieu v. White & Sons, [1901] 2 K.B. 669 at 679, [the] so-called “thin skull” case, and where [the judge] said:
‘If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.’
It means that the defendant is not entitled to make assumptions about the victim. Any characteristics which the victim happens to have must be taken into account in the judgement, whether the defendant could reasonably have known about them or not.