MEDICO-LEGAL |
|
The plaintiff has the burden of proof. Expert witnesses are usually required to testify as to practice standards, while lay witnesses must confine their testimony to facts they perceived with their own senses. To be qualified as an expert, a person must have a sufficient level of education, training, and experience in the relevant field, and it must be shown that their testimony will assist the judge and/or jury in determining a contested issue. The law requires that lay jurors or judges, being untrained in medicine, must accept expert evidence as to whether the provider deviated from the requisite standards but since the plaintiff and the defendant will usually each hire their own experts, there will be conflicting opinions.
|
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY |
|
In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.
|
|