|
Who Has the Burden of Proof in a Lawsuit?
The
person bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, has the burden of
proving the elements of his lawsuit. In a civil case, the plaintiff
must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. That
means that he must prove a fact and his damages by showing that
something is more likely so than not, i.e. 50.1% versus 49.9%.
If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff anddefendant
equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof
and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the
defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything.
The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the
plaintiff.
There are limited circumstances in which the defendant must
prove a defense. This usually arises when the defendant has
raised what is known as an affirmative defense. Also, if the
defendant attempts to blame a third party, he is usually required
to prove his case against that third party by a preponderance
of the evidence.
If the plaintiff has successfully proves that a fact is more
likely so than not, it must be accepted as true by the judge
or jury. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its
case beyond a reasonable doubt. This higher burden of proof
is required in criminal cases because of the deprivation of
freedom (incarceration) or life (in death penalty states).
In civil cases, the remedy is usually the payment of money.
Thus, the burden of proof is less.
Most jurisdictions provide guidelines for proving a case.
For instance, when there are no genuine issues of material
fact regarding a claim, a party may move for summary judgment.
In a summary judgment motion, the moving party asks the court
to decide the issue as a matter of law since the facts involving
that issue are not disputed. In instances where the facts
clearly entitle one side to a verdict in their favor, the
court can grant a summary judgment in their favor and prevent
the jury from deciding the issue.
In particular types of cases, the law requires that the plaintiff
prove his case with expert testimony. For instance, in medical
malpractice cases, it is not enough for the plaintiff to present
factual evidence to the jury to succeed. The plaintiff must
prove that malpractice occurred through the expert testimony
of physicians in the same specialty as the defendant physician.
Some laws provide a presumption of proof. For instance, when
a driver rear-ends another vehicle, most jurisdictions provide
that there is a presumption of negligence on the rear-ending
driver. The burden then shifts to that driver to prove that
he was not negligent in hitting the rear of the plaintiff's
vehicle. There may also be laws providing a presumption that
the plaintiff's damages were caused by the injuries if before
the accident the plaintiff was in good health, but commencing
with the accident suffers symptoms continuously.
|
