Football referees often call penalties based on appearances. For example, if an offensive lineman’s head snaps back, the referee typically calls illegal hands to the face on the defensive player, or if a receiver extends his arms against a defensive back, the official nearly always calls offensive pass interference. In both instances, there may not have been a foul at all, but there is enough evidence to call one.
Negligence cases work the same way. The plaintiff does not have to “prove” anything; the plaintiff need only introduce enough evidence to support a certain conclusion. Even if there are other facts that would lead to a contrary conclusion, the rule still applies.
Burden of Proof
In civil court, plaintiffs must prove their cases by a preponderance of the evidence, which means “more likely than not.”
The balancing scales of justice are often used to illustrate this point, but a better image may be to picture two equally-sized stacks of paper sitting side by side. If one sheet of paper is added to the stack on the left, it is slightly larger than the stack on the right, and that almost imperceptible difference is a preponderance of the evidence.
How It Works
New York Central Railway Company v. Grimstad, which concerned a drowning in Brooklyn Harbor in 1919, is one of the foundational cases in American personal injury law. Sometime during the night, a barge apparently collided with a steamer, and the captain was thrown overboard. His wife ran below deck to get a rope, but by the time she came back on deck, her husband was below the waves. The captain could not swim.
Any one of these factors could have “caused” the captain to drown, in the ordinary sense of the word. The steamer could have been faulted for the accident, under the theory that if the vessels had not collided, the captain would not have been thrown overboard. Or, perhaps the captain’s wife was at fault, for not throwing her husband a rope in time to save him. There may have even been a negligent swimming instructor who did not teach the captain proper technique. It is even possible that the captain was careless and simply stepped off the deck in the darkness.
But, after hearing all the evidence, a jury determined that the barge owner was at fault for the fatality, because the boat did not have life-preservers or other floatation devices on the deck. The appeals court left that verdict intact, because a reasonable person could conclude that the lack of floatation devices caused the captain’s death, in the legal sense of the word.
As an additional point, appeals courts typically hesitate to throw out jury verdicts, unless they are utterly unsupported by the evidence. The theory is that the jurors not only heard the evidence, but they observed the witnesses’ demeanor, so jurors are a better judge of the facts than appeals court judges.
Contact an Attorney Today
Generally speaking, the defendant is liable for damages if there is any evidence that points to the party’s negligence. For a free consultation with a diligent personal injury attorney in Fayetteville, contact the Wade Law Firm today. Hospital and after-hours appointments are available.
