In Randhawa v Wang, the Court applied the “thin skull” principle as well, this time to an emotionally and physically fragile Plaintiff.
 I have already found that Ms. Randhawa’s earlier problems had largely resolved about six months before the accident in question. It follows that this is a case for the application of the “thin skull” principle. The law is well settled that the wrongdoer must take his victim as he finds her: Pryor v. Bains (1986), 69 B.C.L.R. 395 (C.A.) at p. 399. In this case, the weakness or latent susceptibility of the plaintiff was quiescent but was activated into being as a result of the tortious conduct of the defendant: Pryor at pp. 399-400.
 It was apparent from Ms. Randhawa’s testimony and from her medical history, in particular her psychological history, that she does not deal well with the challenges posed by pain and physical limitations. She tends to fixate on her pain and problems. This was described by various experts as “pain syndrome” or “pain behaviour”. In any event, this too falls within the thin skull rule. The plaintiff was emotionally and physically fragile at the time of the accident, and the defendant must take the plaintiff as he finds her.
 Having concluded that the subject accident was a contributing factor to both the disc herniation and Ms. Randhawa’s facet joint and musculoligamentous problems, I must consider whether there was a measurable risk that the plaintiff, being psychologically and physiologically vulnerable, would have experienced these problems at some point even if the 2003 motor vehicle accident had not occurred.