Hybrid heads of claim
Some heads of claim do not fall neatly within the above categories. The best
example is damages for loss of congenial employment ± an award to compensate
the claimant for not being able to continue doing a particularly satisfying job Hale
v. London Underground Ltd 1992)). Nursing is one of the classically cited
examples of satisfying employment.
Structured settlements
The court generally awards, or the defendant agrees to pay, a lump sum of
damages [23]. That lump sum or part of it may then be invested in such a way that
it produces an annuity which meets the claimant's assessed needs at various stages
through his life. This form of investment is called a structured settlement. This may
have tax advantages or be otherwise advantageous ± for instance if there are
concerns that a claimant, or whoever would be managing the money, might fritter
it away.
6.4.7 Proving the case
General
It is for the claimant to prove the case. Proof is on the balance of probabilities. The
general rule is that things are proved by adducing evidence or by getting the other
side to agree them. If something is blindingly obvious and common knowledge,
the judge may `take judicial notice' of it, thus dispensing with the formal
requirement of proof or agreement. But this is an extremely limited and in practice
unimportant exception to the general rule.
Evidence is a highly technical branch of the law in its own right, and cannot
be dealt with in this chapter. It is important to remember that evidence includes
evidence not only of fact, but also of opinion from appropriately qualified
experts.
The maximres ipsa loquitur
Although Lord Woolf does not like Latin tags, lawyers still use them because they
are convenient shorthand. One of the most common isRes ipsa loquitur:the thing
speaks for itself. It refers to the situation where the mere facts of a case shout
loudly and unequivocally `Negligence, and nothing but negligence'.
Alot of mystique has sprung up around this maxim. It has at various times been
suggested that where the maxim applies, the burden of proof shifts from the
claimant to the defendant. It has now been established that this is wrong: the
burden of proof never moves [24].
86 Nursing Law and Ethics