|
I realise that you are talking in the area of civil law and what I am about to cite is criminal law; but I favour the logic of the "egg-shell skull rule" which has been extant in English common law for a long time and is thus also in the common law of countries like Australia. The case involves a criminal that bashed a victim without enormous force but the victim died because his skull was quite thin (hence the "egg-shell skull" naming). The criminal was found guilty of murder because he had killed the victim. The criminal could not claim that a different victim might have survived a similar bashing. So in the case at hand I favour a ruling that goes if a driver, through negligence, injures a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or car driver then the extent of the injury is more important in determining compensation than some average person in some arbitrary form of vehicle. If not, why not make it a truck or an urban assault vehicle (SUV/4WD). Legislation is the one-size fits all approach; common law (the basis of compensation) is supposed to consider the facts of the case to arrive at a judgement.
| 
