In law, the party bringing a lawsuit must present evidence to the jury or the judge that proves the facts of their case. This is called the burden of proof. And the requirements for how the plaintiff does this depends on the type of case the plaintiff is bringing.
For example, if you are injured in a car wreck when another person runs into the back of you while you are stopped at a red light, you would be the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit or claim), and the driver that rear-ended you would be the defendant (the person defending the lawsuit). The plaintiff in this case would have the burden to prove the defendant violated the law and injured the plaintiff.
In a (relatively) simple case like this, the plaintiff would have to prove four basic elements to win the case:
The defendant had a duty to the plaintiff
The defendant breached that duty
The defendant’s breach of that duty proximately caused an injury to the plaintiff, and
The Plaintiff was injured
Sounds simple, right? But it gets complicated when we look at how the plaintiff proves these elements and how convinced the jury or judge must be of the plaintiff’s proof.
(Not) Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Civil cases like the car wreck above are very different than criminal cases, and that includes the burden of proof for the plaintiff (in civil cases) and the prosecution (in criminal cases). We’ve all seen legal television shows involving prosecutors or criminal defense lawyers who are either trying to convict a suspected criminal or get that suspect set free.
In criminal cases, where the state has brought charges against someone and he may go to jail, the burden of proof is very high. The prosecution must prove their case to almost black and white certainty. The burden of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The United States Supreme Court stated in Miles v. United States (1880) beyond a reasonable doubt means, “The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.”
Thus, in criminal cases, creating doubt creates an out for defendants.
But in civil cases, where no one is going to jail and the parties are (generally) only arguing over money, the burden of proof is much different. Juries are instructed to weigh the evidence and decide the case based on what’s more likely right than wrong. Creating doubt does not create an out in civil cases.
Instead civil plaintiffs are required to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Reason and Common Sense Standard
Often times jurors in civil cases find the preponderance of the evidence standard a much more fair and reasonable means of deciding a case. It can be very frustrating for jurors who are bound by the criminal standard of deciding a case beyond a reasonable doubt because jurors can be almost certain the defendant committed the crime but would be required to vote not guilty and let the defendant walk right out of the courtroom without any accountability, if the defense were able to conjure up any reasonable doubt.
Oftentimes defendants in civil cases attempt the same strategy. They hire expert witnesses, attempt to discredit the plaintiff’s doctors, attack and accuse the plaintiff of wrongdoing, and generally throw things up at the wall to see if they stick.
This is why picking a fair jury is so important in civil cases. The civil jury must be able to fairly weigh the evidence and understand they are not held to the criminal burden –– but can use reason and common sense to decide the case.
