Burden of Proof & Evidentiary Standards in California Personal Injury Cases
In order to better understand evidentiary standards in personal injury cases, let us first clarify evidentiary standard in criminal cases, called “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and compare it with other evidentiary standards in California. In criminal cases, the defendant can only be found guilty if the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of the alleged crime. That rule, innocent unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is a high bar. In fact, it’s the highest bar to succeed in any case that comes before any judge or jury. Prosecutors have their work cut out for them. The same bar isn’t held for civil cases.
Consider O.J. Simpson, he was acquitted at trial in 1995 on the criminal charges of murder (among other charges) of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Nicole Brown Simpson’s and Ronald Goldman’s families sued him for wrongful death in civil court and won. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensation. How is it possible to win a criminal case but lose a civil case for the same allegation?
Simple: the standard of proof is lower in civil courts. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, but sometimes clear and convincing evidence may also be applied. In rare cases, a controversial standard known as the Collateral Source Rule may also be applied. Typically, you’ll only run into these terms if your personal injury claim turns into a lawsuit and heads for trial.
Helping you understand your personal injury case is a mission of ours. These cases can be complicated and exhausting, making recovery of a personal injury all the harder. So, if you have questions or want to get started on a personal injury case in Los Angeles, contact us. We have a network of personal injury lawyers and can align your case up with an attorney best for you. Rest assured that your personal injury attorney in Los Angeles will have your interests as a priority so that you can spend your time and energy on your recovery while the attorney works toward recovering fair and just compensation.
Schedule your free consultation now. It’s confidential, customized, and hassle-free.
What Does a Preponderance of the Evidence Mean?
According to Evidence Code §115, the plaintiff in California personal injury cases must prove his or her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. This standard means that more or less what the plaintiff claims is more likely than not to be true. The plaintiff has the burden to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. A jury or, if it’s a bench trial, a judge will determine the probability of the facts. The defendant does not need to prove anything, but if an affirmative defense is raised, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the defense.
Here’s an example to better explain this burden of proof. John is driving late at night and is almost home when Jim runs a red light and slams into the driver’s side of John’s car. John sustains serious bodily injuries and sues for $225,000 for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To prove his claim, John’s attorney admits into evidence:
- Traffic video showing Jim ran a red light
- An accident reconstruction report indicating how the accident was caused by Jim’s negligence
- Police report that shows Jim was charged with running the light
- Medical bills and treatment plans
- Paystubs
- Expert testimony addressing the long-term care John will need for recovery
- Lay testimony by family and friends explaining how the accident has detrimentally impacted John’s qualify of life.
Based on the video, accident reconstruction, and police report, the jury decides that Jim was more likely than not at fault for the accident––and the accident caused John’s injuries.
In another example, Mary had used Johnson & Johnson baby powder for years. Then, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Mary is overweight, and during the personal injury claim, it was discovered by the defendant that Mary also had been taking hormone therapy after menopause. Both being overweight and hormone therapy are risk factors for ovarian cancer. She and her attorney argue that the use of Johnson & Johnson baby powder over two decades is the direct and proximate cause of ovarian cancer. The defendant argues that the risk factors of obesity and hormone therapy are the direct and proximate cause, and if not, then contributed to it. Both sides offer expert testimony that proves their own arguments and disproves the other party’s arguments. It will be up to a jury to decide if (1) it is more likely than not that the baby powder directly caused ovarian cancer, and (2) if the risk factors contributed to it.
The last example testifies to the need to make sure you have an attorney who is knowledgeable of the specific type of personal injury claim you have.
What Does Clear and Convincing Evidence Mean?
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher bar than preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather than the evidence proving more likely than not that the defendant caused the injury due to his or her wrongful act, the plaintiff must prove that it was highly probable that the defendant was at fault.
To be highly probable, the evidence must be “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. In personal injury cases, this standard of proof is applied when the stakes are high (e.g., termination of parental rights, involuntary commitment, deportation). Typically, in personal injury cases, this rule is invoked when the plaintiff seeks punitive damages. As such, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted out of malice, fraud, or oppression, and the evidence for the same must be clear and convincing.
What is the Collateral Source Rule?
The Collateral Source Rule is not a rule that assigns a burden of proof or the level of proof to determine fault and, thus, liability for compensation. Instead, it refers to a specific type of evidence: evidence the plaintiff already received compensation from another source but not the defendant. The other source is usually the plaintiff’s or other insurance company. The rule is meant to prevent the defendant from escaping liability and avoiding paying for his or her wrongful act.
The Collateral Source Rule does two things:
1. It does not allow the defendant to tell the jury that the plaintiff received compensation from an outside source; and
2. It does not allow the reduction of damages in the amount of the outside source’s payment to the plaintiff.
The only exception to this rule is a personal injury claim based on medical malpractice. In the latter case, the defendant can offer into evidence proof of compensation by an outside source.
Knowledgeable Personal Injury Attorneys in Los Angeles
Contact us if you have suffered a personal injury as a result of someone else’s tortious act. We will review your case and connect you with a trusted, resourceful personal injury attorney in the Los Angeles metro area. Don’t wait, because though the standard of proof is a probability that the defendant likely is at fault, the evidence to prove it can disappear over time. Witnesses forget things. Video or pictures can get misplaced. It’s important to allow your attorney to start work on your case as soon as possible. Reach out to us; we are here to help you quickly find the right personal injury attorney.
