Walker M C
Department of Clinical Neurology, Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Seizure. 2001 Apr;10(3):203-7. doi: 10.1053/seiz.2000.0489.
The attitudes of courts in England to the assessment of damages for post-traumatic epilepsy have dramatically changed over the last 20-30 years. In assessing damages for post-traumatic epilepsy the courts are faced with a number of considerations: epilepsy can appear several years after the injury; epilepsy is not a homogeneous condition; the eventual prognosis is unknown; the epilepsy may not have been directly due to the trauma; and epilepsy affects life expectancy and employment. Damages were originally fixed at the point of compensation, and these rather crude calculations led to both over- and under-compensation. This situation was improved in 1985, when courts were permitted to award damages on the assumption that epilepsy would not occur or worsen, and further damages should these assumptions prove to be incorrect. The courts in England still depend, however, upon the evidence of expert witnesses chosen by the plaintiff and defendant. A tension thus exists between the duty of expert witnesses to the court and the understandable inclination of expert witnesses to support the party that has instructed them. The Woolf report has led to changes in the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and will hopefully remedy many of the inconsistencies and inequities that occur.
在过去二三十年里，英国法院对创伤后癫痫损害赔偿评估的态度发生了巨大变化。在评估创伤后癫痫的损害赔偿时，法院面临诸多考量因素：癫痫可能在受伤数年之后才出现；癫痫并非单一病症；最终预后情况未知；癫痫可能并非直接由创伤所致；而且癫痫会影响预期寿命和就业。损害赔偿最初在赔偿时确定，这些相当粗略的计算导致了赔偿过多和过少的情况。1985年这种情况得到了改善，当时法院被允许在假定癫痫不会发生或恶化的基础上判给损害赔偿，如果这些假定被证明不正确则可判给进一步的损害赔偿。然而，英国法院仍然依赖原告和被告所选定专家证人的证据。因此，专家证人对法院的责任与专家证人支持聘请他们一方的可理解倾向之间存在着矛盾。伍尔夫报告带来了专家证人职责的变化，有望纠正许多出现的不一致和不公平现象。
