Burden of Proof in Auto Accident Litigation
If you’ve recently been in a car crash and your attempts at negotiating an auto crash settlement with the insurance company have fallen through, your case will start to move through the sometimes slow, but always expensive litigation process. To determine how strong your case is likely to be, and indeed whether you should take it to court at all, you need to know what different legal procedures you’ll be subject to. One of those procedures is known as the burden of proof.
In all auto accident lawsuits, and indeed in all negligence lawsuits in general, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that the defendant is assumed to be innocent, unless you can prove otherwise through the use of evidence and witnesses. In a trial you will present your evidence first that is designed to prove the negligence of the defendant as it pertains to the car accident. After your lawyer has presented your case, the defendant then can rebuff this evidence or charge that you yourself contributed to the accident as well.
While the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a negligence case, there is some good news. Unlike in criminal trials, where for someone to be guilty, they must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a negligence case, someone only needs to be proved liable after a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is less strict than the reasonable doubt used in criminal cases. It is best described on the scale of justice. If the evidence in a case is weighed and the scale tips in favor of the party that bear the burden of proof, the jury should find the defendant negligent.
For more information on all aspects of dealing with an auto accident, from information collection to settlement, visit the Auto Accident Settlement Center.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.