R. vs. Blaue (1975)

Issue:

The primary question in the present case is whether or not the victim’s denial of receiving blood transfusions due to her religious convictions breaks the defendant’s chain of caution and absolves them of responsibility for her death.

Rule:

The “thin skull rule” also known as the “egg-shell skull rule” in criminal law applies in this case. It demonstrates that the defendant is unable use the victim’s specific vulnerabilities as a defence to lessen their liability. Rather the defendant must take the victim as they find them, meaning that they are liable for repercussions of their actions, irrespective of whether the victim has a vulnerability or pre-existing condition that makes the harm caused by the defendant’s actions worse.

Application:

The following facts apply to R v. Blaue: Blue, the defendant, repeatedly stabbed the victim, who was a Jehovah’s Witness. After being brought to the hospital, the victim was told that a blood transfusion would be necessary to preserve her life. She declined the transfusion because of her religious convictions, and as a result, she passed away from her wounds.

The victim’s reluctance to accept the blood transfusion, according to defendant was an intervening act that severed the victim’s injury and ended the sequence of events leading to her death. In essence, Blaue asserted that it was her refusal not his actions that led to   her demise.

But the court used the thin skull rule, ruling that Blaue had to accept his victim for who she was religious convictions and all. The patient’s denial of the blood transfusion, the court ruled, was an expected outcome and did not represent a new intervening act that could rupture the chain of causation. The victim’s religious convictions and subsequent rejection of medical care were fundamental to which she was and did not release the defendant rom liability for her demise.

Furthermore, the court stated that Blaue’s stab wounds were the primary cause of death. The stabbing wounds were the main factor of the victim’s death and refusing the blood transfusions did not change that.

Conclusion:

The defendant’s conducts were found to be the direct and significant factor in the victim’s death by the court. The victim’s decision to decline the blood transfusion due to her religious convictions did not end the causal chain. Blaue was consequently found accountable for the manslaughter. The conviction was maintained so reaffirming the rule that defendants should treat their victims exactly as they find them vulnerabilities and all.

This case is important because it highlights the manner in which the thin skull rule is implemented and shows that a defendant cannot circumvent responsibility solely due to the victim has particular traits that add to the harm they have experienced.