Final answer:
Presumed damages are assumed damages without specific evidence, while special harm is specific and quantifiable harm that can be proven. Presumed damages have a lower threshold and do not require the plaintiff to prove the specific harm suffered, while special harm requires concrete evidence. The relationship between the two is that presumed damages can serve as a basis for a legal claim, but special harm involves a higher standard of proof.
Step-by-step explanation:
Presumed damages refer to a type of damages that are assumed or presumed to exist without the need for specific evidence of harm. In a defamation case, for example, if a statement is considered defamatory on its face, the law may presume that the plaintiff has suffered harm, even if the actual harm cannot be proven. Special harm, on the other hand, refers to specific and quantifiable damages that can be proven with evidence. It is a higher standard than presumed damages as it requires the plaintiff to provide tangible proof of the harm suffered.The relationship between presumed damages and special harm is that presumed damages can serve as a basis for a legal claim, but they usually have a lower threshold than special harm. If presumed damages are established, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the specific harm suffered, whereas special harm requires concrete evidence of the harm.For example, assume that a defamatory statement is made about a public official concerning his official conduct, and it is considered defamatory per se (defamatory on its face). In this case, presumed damages would apply, meaning that the law presumes the plaintiff has suffered harm to his reputation without requiring him to prove it. However, if the statement is not considered defamatory per se, and the plaintiff wishes to claim special harm, he would need to present specific evidence of the harm suffered, such as financial loss or damage to his professional opportunities.