In law, nothing is true unless you can prove it with admissible evidence. But how much evidence is enough? Although there is no mathematical formula that can resolve this question, the law does impose a burden of proof on someone seeking to prove something. There are several different versions of the burden of proof, depending on what you’re trying to prove.
The Elements of a Negligence Claim
Negligence is the most common basis of a personal injury claim. To win a negligence claim, you have to prove the following assertions:
- The defendant owed you a duty of care.
- The defendant breached their duty of care. Duty plus breach adds up to negligence.
- You suffered damages (harm that money can compensate you for, typically a physical injury).
- The defendant’s breach of duty actually caused the damages you suffered.
- Your damages were a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
To establish liability (not just negligence), you must prove each one of these assertions. Other types of claims (product liability, for example) require you to prove different facts.
The Various Burdens of Proof
Following are descriptions of the most commonly used burdens of proof.
A Preponderance of the Evidence
To win a negligence claim, for example, you must prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence. This is not a particularly high standard to meet. You must present enough evidence to tilt the scales of justice ever so slightly in your favor. You can win if you can convince a court that the defendant is more likely than not to be liable (51%); the defendant’s job is to present enough evidence to deny you that 51% confidence.
Affirmative Defenses
In a negligence claim, the defendant might offer one of several available ‘affirmative defenses.’ When a defendant offers an affirmative defense, they are asserting that the affirmative defense entitles them to avoid liability even if every claim the victim made is true. Here are some examples of affirmative defenses:
- Assumption of the risk: The plaintiff understood in advance the risk of the activity that they undertook, and they voluntarily chose to accept it. This might be the case if you broke your arm in a sporting event, for example.
- Expiration of the statute of limitations deadline: In South Carolina, the deadline is usually three years after the accident.
- Comparative fault: The accident was partly your fault. Depending on the circumstances, the comparative fault might reduce your liability or completely eliminate it.
- Sovereign immunity: A government employee acting in their official capacity can, in some cases, claim sovereign immunity to avoid liability.
Since the defendant must assert an affirmative defense, it is the defendant who must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. This reverses the burden of proof with respect to any affirmative defense that the defendant asserts. Nevertheless, the victim still bears the burden of proving every element of their own claim.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden of proof. You must present enough evidence to establish a firm conviction in the minds of the jury that your claim is valid. In personal injury law, this standard usually applies only to a request for punitive damages.
If you ask for punitive damages on top of economic and non-economic damages, you must satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard only with respect to your claim for punitive damages. You still bear the burden of proving your entitlement to economic and non-economic damages by a preponderance of the evidence.
Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. This standard applies to criminal law, not personal injury law. The disparity between guilt beyond a reasonable count and a preponderance of the evidence is why a victim can lose a criminal case and still win a civil case based on the same conduct (murder vs wrongful death, for example).
Other Standards
South Carolina law applies other standards under certain circumstances, including:
- Probable cause: A police officer needs probable cause to arrest you or to search your home. Under many circumstances, the officer needs a warrant issued by a magistrate. If an exception applies, the officer doesn’t even need a warrant. Probable cause requires even less evidence than a preponderance of the evidence.
- Reasonable suspicion: This standard requires even less evidence than probable cause. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to pat down your outer loathing looking for weapons for example.
Both of these standards are easier to meet than a preponderance of the evidence. South Carolina uses other, less common standards to meet the burden of proof requirements in individual situations.
Talk to a Rock Hill, South Carolina, Personal Injury Lawyer
If your claim’s value is substantial, you probably need to hire a lawyer to help you. Don’t worry about money–if your claim is strong, you’ll be able to find a personal injury lawyer to take your case. You won’t owe a dime in legal fees until and unless you win. Contact an experienced Rock Hill, SC, personal injury lawyer at Elrod Pope Accident & Injury Attorneys to schedule a free case consultation at (803) 784 4984.
