Burden Of Proof in Civil Cases - Research Paper Example

Burden Of Proof in Civil Cases General standard of proof in civil litigation is a preponderance of the evidence. The complainant should establish with probability more than 5 (Zamir & Ritov, 2014). Since court sanctions in civil cases are geared towards compensating the aggrieved party, the state plays a passive role. The complainant has the obligation to prove his/her claim beyond reasonable doubt factually. The plaintiff is seeking financial consideration from the defendant in the form of damages. The plaintiff is therefore charged with the burden of proof while the defendant establishes a specific defense. This article explores the concept of burden of prove and its role in civil cases. There is considerable literature that argue against the principals of the burden of proof. The statistical element of preponderance standard as construed by … is not optimal, and he argues that that the adductive approach is used to quantify the degree in which evidence should be relied on. Since the burden of evidence is classically charged on the plaintiff. The burden of evidence makes the judicial process simpler but exposes the court to errors. The outcome of the case is dependent on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The trial process may work in favor of the defendant especially in occasions where matters involved are not recordable. This article argues that despite the importance of the burden of proof in establishing liability of the defendant, it marked by considerable shortcoming that has led to inaccurate verdicts. Purpose The burden of proof is a critical aspect of adjudication systems. Louse Kaplow in his journal acknowledges that this concept has been subjected to minimal normative analysis. This article will explore the concept of burden of proof in civil litigation and how it hardly works in our adjudication systems (Kaplow, 2014). The concept of Burden of proof The litigant assumes the status quo. The plaintiff is charged with the responsibility of proving a claim by factual presentation beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of prove creates a passive and just legal environment where the complainant shows a case while the defendant establishes some defense facts. There are classical norms and standard that the evidence presented should lie within. The plaintiff will present evidence that is considered by judge/jury for possible conviction of the defendant. The defendant does not have to proof his/her innocence but in the state stands in a court of law as a reference point. Assumption The burden of proof rules is conceived of a postulation that evidence taken were inaccurate, and the court did not arrive at the required degree of conviction of a particular fact. These assumptions are evidence that the court proceedings may result from poor decision and misrepresentation of facts. The Code of Civil procedure has no appropriate answers to the problems arising from the new formation of the principle of party control. The statistical element in the propensity is also arrived at through some assumptions since facts cannot be quantified but can only be qualified. Shortcomings 1. Litigants take reference to point As argued by Eyal Zamir and Ilana, if the claimant takes the status quo as the reference point, dismissal of claims by the plaintive may unduly benefit the defendant (Zamir & Ritov, 2014). The law serves the all the people justly. The perception of the operation of the law is important also to the courts. Confidence in the legal system depends on the outcome of cases. Dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on grounds that there is no evidence can be perceived has denied the complainant gains and accepting them can also be regarded as granting the plaintiff undue benefits. 2. Some facts are impossible to proof Indented assault and unrecorded insults can be quickly claimed. The law allows a lawsuit to an intended tort of a civil wrong, but the incorporation of the burden of evidence in the case process makes the solution of the case far difficult. The judge is obliged to dismiss claims without reasonable prove but that do not necessarily mean that the allegation are fabricated. If the application by the party bearing the burden of prove cannot prove beyond doubt that his claim is true, the claim will be dismissed. Such dismissal may translate to denial of gains to a complainant and defending the accused. Average citizens do not keep records of all the events in their lives and to prove their engagement with fellow citizens in a court of law is a complicated thing. 3. Collection of evidence To access some evidence, technological resources and finances are required. This makes a civil suit more expensive because the complainant is charged with the responsibility of providing such evidence. Considering that evident collection and presentation is the preserve of the parties, some cases will be lost on grounds that evidence could not be collected. The preponderance standard The preponderance Standard is classically described as an absolute probability brink of 0.5. There have been some claims that an absolute threshold is not an optimum measure of the reliability of evidence. Preponderance is characterized by a conceptualization of the preponderance standard as a likelihood ratio. The preponderance standard tends to eliminate the concept of Conjunction Paradox and subsequently establish the ratio tests under a Bayesian perspective (Cheng, 2012). This concept serves to explain further the Blue Bus shortcomings as well as other questions revolving around statistical confirmation. Many critiques in the general domain have been quick to foster for the adductive models that are considered to offer the best explanation as well as bridge a rift in current evidence scholarship. Critiques of this concept have been harmonized the statistical aspect of the burden of proof. The probability aspect preponderance standard is there for unreliable. Many scholars including Edward Cheng (Cheng, 2012) have suggested adductive model How firm should evidence be? For evidence to be reliable, there are classical standards that have to be made. It should be appreciated the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt is precise. The element of preponderance standard has also been incorporated that requires that the proof of evidence beat a statically chance of 0.5. Where parties who are probably civilians are charged with the responsibility of proof, such evidence is poorly structured and researched. Raising the standard of evidence may make proofing of the claim quite difficult, and the defendant may be granted undue benefits if such evidence is rejected. Louis Kaplow in his journal considers the objective of courts in a civil case to maximize social welfare. He argues that there is a trade-off between chilling cost and deterrence benefit. The optimum proof requirement is determined by that are distinct from those underlying the preponderance of evidence rule and classical standards. The qualitative standards of burden of proof differ with settings and contexts. It is, therefore, necessary for the adjudicative administrators to form their unique rules and requirement depending on the context. Trial process By applying the evidence rule, the judge decides which information may be represented in the court of law. The complainant handles filling the case and hiring representative lawyers. At the courtroom, the plaintiff will proof by the presentation of evidence that a legal injury has been suffered as a result of actions of the defendant. The court will hear the evidence and in some cases allow the defendant to defend himself or herself. The burden of proof must be established by confirming or accepting evidence and opposing contradicting evidence. A conclusion drawn from presented evidence can be disputed based on perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof. After the evidence is heard, each side is given an opportunity to make a closing statement. The judge will explain the case and the decision the judge need to make after considering the presented evidence and argument. The verdict given will be twofold; if the complainant has suffered a legal injury that is caused by defendant’s actions and then the granting of complainant’s demands or compensation to the complainant by the respondent. The defendant will be required to pay the damages in the stipulated time. Failure to do so the defendant will be judged by failure to allow court orders which are a criminal case. Court sanction on crimes arising from civil cases is to force the party to fulfill their obligations and discourage such actions by imposing other punishments that may include fine and incarcerations. Conclusion The burden of proof in civil adjudication is a critical amended that is the determinant of how social welfare is offered by the courts. The legal environment is defined by dynamics and occasional conflicts. Where civilian particle is involved, the court sanctions are intended to compensate the aggrieved party. Legal injuries are statically apparent. The aspect of legal proceeding that the injured party should proof beyond reasonable doubt that the injury was suffered and that it was the doing the defendant. The burden of the evidence has not optimally worked in our legal system. The defendant will have an easy time being the point of reference. The defendant in most cases is not required to proof his innocence that would also be a hard work. The aggrieved party will go home without gains if the presentation of evidence cannot prove that a loss has been suffered as a result of defendant’s actions. Some legal injuries and intention to commit tort despite being prosecutable in a court of law cannot be easily proofed, and such cases are almost a failure The preponderance aspect of 0.5 probabilities remains unreliable because there is another possibility that evidence are not accurate. Because the defendant assumes a status quo and a point of reference, too much work is left to the complainant to proof the suffering of loss. Although the accused may be occasionally required to defend themselves with evidence, they usually take a reference position. References Cheng, E. K. (2012). Re-conceptualizing the Burden of Proof. Yale LJ, 122, 1254. Kaplow, L. (2014). Likelihood ratio tests and legal decision rules. American law and economics review, 16(1), 1-39. Walton, D. (2014). Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cambridge University Press. Zamir, E., & Ritov, I. (2012). Loss aversion, omission bias, and the burden of proof in civil litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 41(1), 165-207. Read More