[_dps]

> eggshell skull doctrine would rather be used to exculpate Tyler

This is the opposite of how the doctrine works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

"the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them."

Paraphrasing, the doctrine says that if you do something dangerous, and it does far more damage than you expected, you are culpable for the full extent of damage and not just the damage you thought was likely.

Other related concepts are "you take your victim as they are" and "depraved indifference" murder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder).

As roel_v suggests, it is odd how far the hyper-rationalist conception of guilt differs from the law's conception. If you set into motion events with predictable risk of serious harm be prepared to be held responsible for whatever happens even if you get unlucky and "serious" escalates to "catastrophic".

[fab13n]

You're right, I had it wrong, I though it was a valid defence.

I don't expect law nor jurisprudence to be rational, and neither possible interpretations of the eggshell skull doctrine--what it actually is and what I wrongly thought it was--would have shocked me.