What is buden of proof?

Question

in cases of tort, the burden of proof required is that the Plaintiff must establish "on the balance of probabilities" that the Defendant has been negligent. What is the burden of proof? anyone care to gimme an example of... a case that...involves a burden of proof?

Answer 1

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defence by the amount of evidence required by law. In an action for torts the degree of proof required by law to be presented by the plaintiff is only proof by "preponderance of evidence" or that which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Thus, in an action for personal injuries or wrongful death caused by a vehicular mishap, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant and that such negligence proximately caused the injury or death in suit. The negligence I am referring to may be driving at a fast speed beyond the limits allowed by traffic laws for certain roads wherein the possibility of injuring a pedestrian is great. If the plaintiff was able to establish the fact of want of care of the defendant by presenting an evidence that out-weights that of the defendant then he has successfully met the quantum of evidence required by law.

Answer 2

An auto accident occurs in an intersection. Both drivers claim the other driver ran a red light. Driver A finds a witness who says driver B had a red light.
An accident reconstruction is done by Driver B's insurance company. The accident reconstruction reveals the witness could not have seen what he said he saw.
The case goes to trial. The jury either believes the witness or the reconstruction expert. The jury determines the preponderance of evidence. In a civil case the preponderance of evidence is 51%.

Answer 3

every crime that is committed and goes to trial must have a burden off proof
the burden off proof is what is required by law to prove a criminal act as been committed.
the burdens of proof are set out in archbold the lawyers bible
each crime as different burdens of proof and they are set out in archbold for every crime you can commit, if the CPS CANNOT SATISFY ALL THE BURDENS OFF PROOF REQUIRED THEN THE CASE WILL FAIL IN COURT.
IE if a burglary as been committed the prosecution as to prove the accused was actually present at the scene of the crime. and also had no right to be there in the first place. if they cannot satify the court on this fact then the burden of proof is not there therefore the case will fail, this is only one example obviously other proofs will be needed for different crimes.

Answer 4

In criminal cases the burden of proof is that it is proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. What a 'reasonable doubt' is can only be decided by the jury members or the judge if no jury is involved.

In civil cases ( not criminal ) the burden of proof is only 'a preponderance of the evidence'. It is to be shown that it 'probably' is as the prosecution says.

Answer 5

Um, I thought burden of proof was simply that it is the burden of the prosecutors to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was guilty. Rather than the defendent having to prove his innocence, he is rather to un-prove, if you will, the prosecutors claims. Pretty smart, no? No, I pulled that out of my butt, obviously as my misspelling of prosectuor well shows.

Answer 6

all cases that have gone to trial require a burden of proof. basically means you have to prove your case. if you were in a car accident, you have to prove you were hurt seriously enough to require damages. in a criminal case, you must be able to prove someone "did it" with enough evidence.

Answer 7

here are some examples and info i found:

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tproc2.html
http://www.dayontorts.com/legal-malpractice-collectibility-and-the-burden-of-proof.html