Personal injury lawsuits are civil actions, even if a criminal prosecution spins off of the occurrence, like in a drunk driving case. The two cases are heard with different judges and jurors in different courtrooms. The burden of proof in each type of case is different too. In a civil personal injury lawsuit, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a higher burden than that in the civil case.
Why is the Burden of Proof in a Personal Injury Case Lower?
The answer to this question is simple. In a criminal case, a defendant’s liberty is jeopardized. There might be sentence to a jail or prison term. In a civil case, a person isn’t going to be incarcerated unless he or she is held in contempt of court.
More Likely True Than Not True
CACI No. 200 lays the ground rules for when a jury must deal with the burden of proof of a preponderance of the evidence. In order to preponderate, the injury victim must show that his or her story is more likely true than not true. If that jury doesn’t decide that a version of events is more likely true than not true, it must conclude that the claimant failed to meet his or her burden of proof. In the deliberation process, jurors must consider all of the evidence in the case, regardless of which party produced it. The burden of beyond a reasonable doubt just doesn’t apply in these types of cases.
How Does an Injured Claimant Overcome the Burden of Proof?
There are a variety of forms of evidence that a person claiming liability, injuries and damages can use to preponderate in a personal injury case. There also might be compensatory damages. Testimony might come from any of the following individuals:
- Occurrence witnesses, including the claimant and the defendant.
- Post-occurrence witnesses like investigating police officers or paramedics.
- Emergency room personnel.
- Treating physicians or expert medical witnesses.
- Photographic evidence or video evidence.
Comparative Negligence and a Preponderance of the Evidence
A person might be determined to be partially responsible for their own accident, injuries and damages. That’s a comparative negligence. That doesn’t mean that he or she might fail to preponderate on a personal injury case though. The claimant might be determined to be only 20% at fault. This is, 80% of the fault being attributable to the defendant. Damages are merely reduced by 20% because the claimant still preponderated.
If you suffered injuries and damages in an accident, but you question if you can meet your burden of proof of a preponderance of the evidence, contact us at Maison Law for a free consultation and case review on any California accident. Our experienced and effective personal injury lawyer will listen to you carefully and answer your questions. Then, we’ll advise you on whether it might be worth your while to proceed. If he believes that it would be in your best interests to do so, he’ll advise you accordingly. As we handle accident cases on a contingency fee basis, no up-front legal fees will even be necessary to retain us. If indeed you hire us, our goal will be to obtain the highest settlement or award that you deserve.
Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer
After an accident involving a serious injury in the Central Valley, contact attorney Martin Gasparian for a free consultation and case evaluation. Mr. Gasparian takes a hands-on approach to every case. He believes that every client should work directly with their lawyer, get honest advice and personalized attention to detail their case deserves.
