R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692
Unlawful Act Manslaughter – Causation – Egg Shell Skull Rule – Pre-Existing Medical Condition.
Facts
A husband and wife had an argument that led to the husband chasing his wife out into the street. The wife collapsed during this altercation and died. Whist the husband did not physically touch her, he did shout threats at her. The wife was found to have been suffering from an abnormality of the thyroid gland that neither was aware of that meant that fright or shock could cause death if combined with physical exertion. The husband was charged with manslaughter.
Issue
Did the wife’s medical condition mean that the husband’s action caused the wife’s death or did the the wife’s condition break the chain of causation.
Decision/Outcome
The husband was found guilty of manslaughter. No actual proof of violence was necessary as long as the defendant’s unlawful act, which was the threat of violence, caused her fright leading to her death. The criminal law acknowledges that an assailant must take their victim as they find them. The victim’s state of health did not affect the question of whether or not the defendant’s unlawful act accelerated the victim’s death. It was irrelevant to the issue of causation whether or not the fright was one which would have caused the effect it did on a reasonable person as it did on one of exceptional timidity. Provided the defendant had the requiste mens rea the victim’s pre-existing medical condition did not break the chain of causation. This is sometimes known as the ‘egg-shell skull’ rule.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692 is still a leading authority on the thin skull (or ‘eggshell skull’) rule in the context of unlawful act manslaughter and causation in English criminal law. The principle that a defendant must take their victim as they find them continues to be good law and has been affirmed in subsequent cases including R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 (in the context of novus actus interveniens) and remains consistent with the causation principles confirmed in R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38. No statutory changes have altered the underlying common law position described. The article is suitable for student use as a case note on these foundational principles.
