Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University, Lucknow

B.A.LL.B (Hons.), Semester II, Session 2015-16

Subject: Law of Torts

BURDEN OF PROOF

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Rajneesh Kumar Yadav Monisha Purwar
Associate Professor Roll no. 85
Tort Law Semester II
Dr. RMLNLU B.A.L.L.B. (Hons)

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
1. WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ? 4
2. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A LAW SUIT? 5
3. HOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANT ? 5
5. BURDEN OF PROOF IN NEGLIGENCE 8
5.1 STATUTES : 8
5.2 EXPERTS : 9
5.3 CUSTOMS : 9
5.4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE : 9
6. BURDEN OF PROOF IN A BATTERY CLAIM 10
7. BURDEN OF PROOF IN NUISANCE 11
8. BURDEN OF PROOF IN VICAROUS LIABILITY 11
9. BURDEN OF PROOF IN TRESPASS 12
10. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES 12
10.1 CRIMINAL CASE - 12
10.2 CIVIL CASE - 13
11. CASE STUDY 14
11.1 Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others 1966 AIR 1750, 1966 SCR (3)
649 14
11.2 Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 House of Lords 15
11.3 Rufo vs Simpson 86 Cal App. 4Th 573 (2001) 16
12. CONCLUSION 17
REFERENCES 18

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank my Torts Teacher, Dr. Rajneesh Kumar Yadav for having given me the
opportunity to make a project on Burden of Proof. I would like to thank him for providing me with
the inspiration and guidance for this project. Without his help this project wouldnt have been
possible. I would also wish to thank our Vice-Chancellor who constantly exhorts us to deliver our
best at every level. I would also express my gratitude towards my seniors who were a source of
constant support and inspiration. Lastly, yet equally importantly, I am grateful to my family and my
friends for supporting me all the way through the making of this project.

3
 1. WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ?

Most people as young children appear to have a common sense understanding of the burden of
proof. When young people hear a claim being made and it is, in their minds and experience, an
extraordinary claim being made, quite often the response is one of asking for something to support
the claim. The most common retorts are along the line of Prove it, What makes us say that,
Sow me or something like Oh, yeah?. Somewhere along the way too many humans lose that
sense and too often suspend their inclination to accept the principles underlying the Burden of
Proof. 1

All legal cases, whether civil or criminal, have certain evidence-related thresholds that must be met
before a defendant can be found guilty or liable. Burden of proof is a legal duty resting upon a party
litigant, at some stage in the trial of a civil case. The legal duty is to introduce evidence of
preponderating weight on an issue which s/he asserts, to overcome the proof offered on that issue
by the opposite party. It is used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court
must reach in order to have that fact legally established. 2

The term burden of proof is derived from the Latin term onus probandi. Burden of proof is the
obligation placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact. Generally, the burden of proof
is satisfied by evidence.3 It is the most important rule of evidence in the trial of civil cases. The
principle of burden of proof is associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi
incumbit ei qui agit, means: the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.4

1http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENC
E/Burden-of-Proof.htm
2 http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html
3 http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/burden-of-proof/
4 http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/burden-of-proof/
4
 2. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A LAW SUIT?

In civil law cases, the person bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, has the burden of proving each
element of the claim, or cause of action, in his lawsuit. That means that he must prove a fact and his
damages by showing that something is more likely so than not, i.e. 50.1% versus 49.9%. It is the
duty of the plaintiff to convince a judge or jury for his entitlement to the relief sought. The plaintiff
needs to show by a preponderance of evidence or weight of evidence that all the facts necessary
to win a judgment are probably true since he is the one claiming that he was injured by the
defendant's actions.5

If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff and defendant equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden of proof and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the defendant. The defendant
does not have to prove anything. The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the plaintiff.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the defendant
committed the specified crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a higher burden of proof than
the civil preponderance of evidence standard.6

3. HOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANT ?

The defendant is not required to prove her version of events is true. When the plaintiff is trying to
prove the elements of the case, the defendant does not need to convince the jury of an alternative
version -- all that is necessary for the case to fail is for the jury to believe that the chances are 50%
(or more) that the plaintiffs version is inaccurate or false.

The defendant can of course present evidence of facts that contradict the plaintiffs version of
events, but the jury does not need to be convinced that the defendants version of the facts is the
most accurate. The defendants alternative facts simply act to cast enough doubt on the plaintiffs

5 http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-a-burden-of-proof/
6 http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/burden-of-proof/
5
version that the jury no longer believes the plaintiffs version is "more likely than not" true.

There are limited instances or we can say circumstances in which the defendant must prove a
defense. This usually arises when the defendant has raised what is known as an affirmative
defense.7 An affirmative defense occurs when, regardless of the plaintiffs success in proving the
elements of the claim, the defendant proves additional facts that defeat the plaintiffs claim. In
affirmative defense, a plaintiff sets forth a claim in a civil action by making statements in the
document called the complaint. These statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.
The defendant responds to the plaintiff's claims by preparing an answer in which the defendant may
deny the truth of the plaintiff's allegations or assert that there are additional facts that constitute a
defense to the plaintiff's action. For example, a plaintiff may demand compensation for damage
done to his or her vehicle in an automobile accident. Without denying responsibility for the accident,
the defendant may claim to have an affirmative defense, such as the plaintiff's Contributory
Negligence or expiration of the Statue of Limitations. Another example maybe a case where the
plaintiff was injured while participating in a sport. Even if the plaintiff successfully convinces the
jury of all the elements of her case, if the defendant then successfully convinces the jury that
plaintiff "more likely than not" agreed to participate in the sport, and the injuries arose in the normal
course of the sport, the defendant will likely win the case. One more example in which the
defandant has the burden of proof is when the defendant attempts to blame a third party, he is
usually required to prove his case against that third party by a preponderance of the evidence. 8

4. HOW TO MEET BURDEN OF PROOF ?

To know how to meet a burden of proof in a case, the person making the claim must know two
things:
what he has to prove, and
how thoroughly he has to prove it.
For instance,
In the case of an intentional tort,
the plaintiff must prove that

7 Affirmative Defence is a new fact or set of facts that operates to defeat a claim even if the facts supporting that claim
are true.
8 http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/PersonalInjury/burdenofproof.html
6
 he was injured by the defendant and
that the defendant intended his action to cause harm.

In the case of negligence,

the injured plaintiff must show that:
The defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, or a responsibility to act in a certain
way;
the defendant breached that duty by acting with less care than his duty required;
the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injury; and
the injury can be set right by the defendant paying damages to the plaintiff.
In contrast,
In the case of strict liability,
the plaintiff must only prove that :
the defendant's actions caused his injury and that his injury entitles him to compensation.

Similarly, when a defendant raises an affirmative defense, he/she has the burden of proof on his/her
claim that a defense exists. For instance, if the defendant claims that the plaintiff assumed the risk
for his injuries, she must prove to the court that the plaintiff understood the risk that he might suffer
his injury, but decided to proceed anyway.

In addition, the person with the burden of proof must consider how thoroughly he or she must prove
the claim to the court. In civil law cases like personal injury lawsuits, the burden of proof on the
plaintiff is usually to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the plaintiff
must demonstrate that it was more likely than not the defendant is liable for his injuries. One way
to think of the preponderance of the evidence is to measure it in terms of percentages: in order to
meet this burden of proof, the person making the claim must show his claim is at least 51 percent
likely to be true.

Some tort cases require a higher burden of proof. For instance, many states require that fraud be
proven by clear and convincing evidence. This burden of proof is higher than a preponderance of
the evidence, but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof required in
criminal cases. Usually, proving something by clear and convincing evidence means proving that
the claim is substantially likely to be true, even if it is not quite certain.

The burden of proof is often confused with two other common concepts in personal injury cases.
One is the evidentiary burden, or the responsibility of providing enough evidence to raise an issue
7
during the trial. The party who wants to bring up an issue during the trial may only do so if he or
she provides enough evidence to support the issue. The burden of proof is also confused with the
burden of going forward, which simply describes whose turn it is during the trial.

5. BURDEN OF PROOF IN NEGLIGENCE

In a negligence suit, liability exists in general only for consequences of a reasonably foreseeable
type or kind. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act as a reasonable
person would have acted under the circumstances. The court will instruct the jury as to the standard
of conduct required of the defendant. For example, a defendant sued for negligent driving is judged
according to how a reasonable person would have driven in the same circumstances. A plaintiff has
a variety of means of proving that a defendant did not act as the hypothetical reasonable person
would have acted. The plaintiff can show that the defendant violated a statute designed to protect
against the type of injury that occurred to the plaintiff.

Also, a plaintiff might introduce statues, expert witnesses, evidence of a customary practice, or
Circumstantial Evidence details of which are as follows :

5.1 STATUTES :
Federal and state statutes, municipal ordinances, and administrative regulations govern all kinds of
conduct and frequently impose standards of conduct to be observed. For example, the law prohibits
driving through a red traffic light at an intersection. A plaintiff injured by a defendant who ignored
a red light can introduce the defendant's violation of the statute as evidence that the defendant acted
negligently. However, a plaintiff's evidence that the defendant violated a statute does not always
establish that the defendant acted unreasonably. The statute that was violated must have been
intended to protect against the particular hazard or type of harm that caused injury to the plaintiff.
Sometimes physical circumstances beyond a person's control can excuse the violation of a statute,
such as when the headlights of a vehicle suddenly fail,or when a driver swerves into oncoming
traffic to avoid a child who darted into the street. To excuse the violation, the defendant must
establish that, in failing to comply with the statute, she acted as a reasonable person would have
acted.

In many jurisdictions the violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance enacted to protect against
the harm that resulted to the plaintiff is considered negligence per se. Unless the defendant presents
evidence excusing the violation of the statute, the defendant's negligence is conclusively established.
In some jurisdictions a defendant's violation of a statute is merely evidence that the defendant acted

8
negligently.

5.2 EXPERTS :
Often a plaintiff needs an expert witness to establish that the defendant did not adhere to the
conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person in the defendant's circumstances. A juror may be
unable to determine from his own experience, for example, if the medicine prescribed by a
physician was reasonably appropriate for a patient's illness. Experts may provide the jury with
information beyond the common knowledge of jurors, such as scientific theories, data, tests, and
experiments. Also, in cases involving professionals such as physicians, experts establish the
standard of care expected of the professional. In the above example, the patient might have a
physician offer Expert testimony regarding the medication that a reasonably prudent physician
would have prescribed for the patient's illness.

5.3 CUSTOMS :
Evidence of the usual and customary conduct or practice of others under similar circumstances can
be admitted to establish the proper standard of reasonable conduct. Like the evidence provided by
expert witnesses, evidence of custom and habit is usually used in cases where the nature of the
alleged negligence is beyond the common knowledge of the jurors. Often such evidence is
presented in cases alleging negligence in some business activity. For example, a plaintiff suing the
manufacturer of a punch press that injured her might present evidence that all other manufacturers
of punch presses incorporate a certain safety device that would have prevented the injury.

A plaintiff's evidence of conformity or non conformity with a customary practice does not establish
whether the defendant was negligent; the jury decides whether a reasonably prudent person would
have done more or less than is customary.

5.4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE :

Sometimes a plaintiff has no direct evidence of how the defendant acted and must attempt to prove
his case through circumstantial evidence. Of course, any fact in a lawsuit may be proved by
circumstantial evidence. Skid marks can establish the speed a car was traveling prior to a collision,
a person's appearance can circumstantially prove his or her age, etc. Sometimes a plaintiff in a
negligence lawsuit must prove his entire case by circumstantial evidence. Suppose a plaintiff's
shoulder is severely injured during an operation to remove his tonsils. The plaintiff, who was
unconscious during the operation, sues the doctor in charge of the operation for negligence, even
though he has no idea how the injury actually occurred. The doctor refuses to say how the injury
9
occurred, so the plaintiff will have to prove his case by circumstantial evidence.

In cases such as this, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) is invoked. Res
ipsa loquitor allows a plaintiff to prove negligence on the theory that his injury could not have
occurred in the absence of the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff must establish that the injury
was caused by an instrumentality or condition that was under the defendant's exclusive management
or control and that the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred if the defendant had acted with
reasonable care. Thus, in the above example, the plaintiff can use res ipsa loquitor to prove that the
doctor negligently injured his shoulder.

6. BURDEN OF PROOF IN A BATTERY CLAIM

The two essential elements of a civil battery claim are actual offensive or harmful contact with the
plaintiff and the defendants intention to cause that contact. The jury will be asked if it is more
likely than not that "actual offensive or harmful contact" occurred, and if it is more likely than not
the "defendant intended to cause the contact."9

Lets say the plaintiff presents the testimony of a bar-tender who says she saw the defendant punch
the plaintiff in face. The jury finds the bartender credible and finds it "more likely than not" that
harmful contact occurred. When asked if it appeared that the defendant intended to punch the
plaintiff in the face, the bar-tender says yes, that it did not at all appear to be an accident. Believing
the bar-tender, the jury also finds it "more likely than not" that the defendant intended to cause the
harmful contact.10

If the defendant did not have an affirmative defense, the plaintiff would win the case at this point
because he had met his burden of proof on all the elements of the battery claim. Imagine, however,
that the defendant presents testimony from three different strangers who all testify that the plaintiff
asked the defendant to punch him so that the plaintiff could show off his tough jaw. If the jury
believes the testimony is more likely true than not, the defendant will meet his burden of proof for
the affirmative defense of "consent" and win the case.11

9 http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html
10 http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html
11 http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html
10
 7. BURDEN OF PROOF IN NUISANCE
Generally, the burden of proving a nuisance is upon a party who alleges it. The complaining party
must show that the facts alleged constituted a nuisance to a reasonable man. The facts alleged by a
plaintiff in a nuisance action must be proven by adducing relevant and material evidence.

Hence a complaining party through clear evidence must prove the following:

the existence of nuisance,

the injury caused by nuisance,

any evidence which is competent and relevant on the question of damages,

Any nuisance action brought before the court of law will be determined on the basis of the facts of
each case. Apart from determining the existence of a nuisance, the court shall also determine the
following facts: whether the proximate cause of a plaintiffs injury was defendants act; whether
there is sufficient injury or annoyance to constitute nuisance; whether there was a loss of ordinary
use and enjoyment by a plaintiff; whether a plaintiffs reaction to the alleged interference was a
normal one; whether nuisance is permanent or temporary in nature; whether nuisance is abatable;
whether nuisance was created negligently or intentionally; and whether a defendant acted with
malice or in reckless disregard of the rights of others.

8. BURDEN OF PROOF IN VICAROUS LIABILITY

Injured individuals that wish to hold employers accountable for the actions of their employees have
to establish three elements:

The employee agreement required the employee to work under the direction and control of
the employer.

The employer had inherent authority to control the employee.

The employee's actions are within the scope of employment.

The burden of proof rests on the person wanting to hold an employer accountable. Therefore,
obtaining proper records about the scope of employment is important.

11
 9. BURDEN OF PROOF IN TRESPASS
A trespass action is an action at law. But a suit seeking damages for trespass is not a real action. It is
a tort claim, which requires a showing of proximate cause. In an action for trespass, title to the land
is the pivotal issue. Also, a plaintiff who brings a trespass action bears the burden of proving his
ownership.

For trespass to be actionable, the owner should at least sustain a legal injury, which entitles the
owner to a verdict for some damages. Even though they may, under some circumstances, be so
small as to be merely nominal.

The gist of an action for trespass is violation of possession, not challenge to title. A plaintiff has the
burden of proving that s/he was rightfully in possession as against a defendant at the time of the
trespass. To sustain an action for trespass, the plaintiff must have either be in actual physical
possession or constructive possession, usually through holding legal title.

The four elements which a plaintiff must prove in order to recover for trespass are:

an invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his property;

an intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion;
reasonable foreseeability that the act done could result in an invasion of plaintiffs possessory
interest; and
substantial damages to the plaintiff

10. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND

CRIMINAL CASES

One of the major distinctions between a civil and a criminal case is the Burden of Proof required to
prove each case. One of the more famous examples to help illustrate the contrast between crimes
and torts, which received massive media coverage, is the criminal case of O. J. Simpson in his
prosecution for the alleged murder of his wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. This case has been
discussed later in this project.

10.1 CRIMINAL CASE -

In the case of a criminal trial, the accused can only be found guilty if it is shown they have
committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is defined as a doubt based
on an actual valid reason. It must be more than an imaginary doubt and it is often defined judicially
12
as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.
In a criminal case, the absence of all doubt whatsoever is not required, but the proof must show that
the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt standard in a
criminal case is the highest burden of proof that must be met in our courts. This is because, as
defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest standard of proof is grounded on a fundamental
value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty
man go free.

In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the
defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing.
(There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane, and therefore not guilty,
the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who
claim self-defense or duress.)

In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory
definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is difficult
to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but
legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say " at least 98% or 99% " certainty
of guilt.12

10.2 CIVIL CASE -

In a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is based on the preponderance of evidence. Meaning, to
prove a civil case, a plaintiff must show enough evidence to convince the fact finder (jury or the
court) that it is more than 50% likely; or it is more likely to be true than untrue, that plaintiffs claim
is valid.

In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of
technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant. For example, when the plaintiff has
made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence.

In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For
example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was
negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared
to criminal law. In my personal view, it is too low a standard, especially considering that the

12 https://yoursyracuselawyer.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/what-burden-proof-civil-criminal/
13
defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s).

A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a level of "clear and
convincing evidence", which is a standard higher than preponderance, but less than "beyond a
reasonable doubt." 13

11. CASE STUDY

11.1 Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others 1966

AIR 1750, 1966 SCR (3) 649

Facts :- Three suits for damages were filed by the respondents as heirs of three persons who died
as a result of the collapse of the Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant-
Corporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi. This clock tower was exclusively under
the ownership and control of the appellant. It was established there was the duty of the Municipal
Committee to carry out periodical examination for the purpose of determining whether deterioration
had taken place in the structure of the building and whether any precaution was necessary to
strengthen it. Apart from superficial examination from time to time, there was no evidence of an
examination ever made with a view to seeing if there were any latent defects making the building
unsafe.

Concept of Res Ipsa Loquitur :- There is a normal rule that it is for the plaintiff to prove
negligence and not for the defendant to disprove it. But there is an exception to this rule which
applies where the circumstances surrounding the thing which causes the damage are at the material
time exclusively under the control or management of the defendant or his servant and the happening
is such as does not occur in the ordinary course of things without negligence on the defendant's part.
The principle has been clearly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 23, at p. 671 as
follows: "An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in
the first instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the
proper and natural inference immediately arising from them is that the injury complained of was
caused by the defendant's negligence, or where the event charged as negligence tells its own story

13 http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm
14
of negligence on the part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous. To these
cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies. Where the doctrine applies, a presumption of fault is
raised against the defendant, which, if he is to succeed in his defence, must be overcome by
contrary evidence, the burden on the defendant being to show how the act complained of could
reasonably happen without negligence on his part."

Judgement :- Going through the above concept, it can be implied that the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur applies in the circumstances of the present case. It has been found that the Clock Tower
was exclusively under the ownership and control of the appellant or its servants. It has also been
found by the High Court that the Clock Tower was 80 years old and the normal life of the structure
of the top storey of the building, having regard to the kind of mortar used, could be only 40 or 45
years. There is also evidence of the Chief Engineer that the collapse was due to thrust of the arches
on the top portion and the mortar was deteriorated to such an extent that it was reduced to powder
without any cementing properties. It is also not the case of the appellant that there was any
earthquake or storm or any other natural event which was unforeseen and which could have been
the cause of the fall of the Clock Tower.

In these circumstances, the mere fact that there was fall of the Clock Tower tells its own story in
raising an inference of negligence so as to establish a prima facie case against the appellant.

11.2 Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 House of

Lords
Facts :- The claimant contracted pneumoconiosis by inhaling air which contained minute
particles of silica during the course of his employment. The defendant was in breach of a statutory
duty in failing to provide an extractor fan. Had they installed an extractor fan the number of
particles of silica that the claimant was exposed to would have been reduced, however, there would
still be some particles present. There were thus two possible causes: the guilty dust, which should
not have been in the working environment and the innocent dust, which would have been present in
any event. The trial judge held that where the duty arose by statute then it was for the defendant to
show that his breach of duty (the guilty dust) did not cause the disease. As the defendant was unable
to do this they were liable. The defendant appealed contending the burden of proof rests on the
claimant.

Judgement :- The burden of proof remains on the claimant. However, the claimant only had to
demonstrate that the guilty dust had made a material contribution to the disease. He did not have to
demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the guilty dust was the sole cause of the disease.

15
11.3 Rufo vs Simpson 86 Cal App. 4Th 573 (2001)

Facts :- This consolidated civil actions arose from the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Lyle Goldman. Nicole and Ronald were stabbed to death on the night of June 12, 1994, in
front of Nicole's home on Bundy Drive in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs contended that Simpson, Nicole's
ex-husband, had the motive to kill Nicole in a rage. On several prior occasions during their
marriage Simpson had physically abused Nicole. In 1992, they separated. On June 12, 1994,
Simpson's and Nicole's young daughter performed in a dance recital. Simpson flew from New York
to Los Angeles to attend it. At the dance recital when the recital ended, Nicole excluded Simpson
from a post-recital family dinner. Ronald was a waiter at the restaurant where the dinner occurred.
Afterwards, Nicole telephoned the restaurant about a pair of eyeglasses left at the dinner. Ronald
may have been killed because he encountered the murder of Nicole while delivering the eyeglasses
to her home.

Judgement :- In a criminal trial, Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole and Ronald. O.J.
Simpson was found not guilty, by a jury, of any criminal charges related to their death because the
Prosecution was unable to prove him guilty beyond the reasonable doubt.
However, the families of the deceased brought actions in tort, an action for wrongful death and for
battery in that case, against O.J. Simpson.
In the civil trial, the jury concluded that Simpson killed Nicole and Ronald. A civil court jury here
ordered him to pay a financially debilitating $25 million in punitive damages to the families of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman.

Critical Analysis of the Case :- Mr. Simpson lost that case, and the jury awarded a $33,500,000.00
dollar verdict against him. How can this be? How can O.J. Simpson be found not guilty of killing
his wife and her friend, but found liable (i.e., legally responsible) for battery as to his wife and for
battery and wrongful death as to her friend in tort ?
One of the answers to this apparent paradox lies in the burdens of proof required in criminal cases
and in civil cases.
Burdens of proof are the levels of proof the party bringing the case must attain in order to prevail in
the case. It doesn't matter if the party is the U. S. Government, the People of California, a business,
an individual or an individual's estate, the burden of proof is usually the same.
O. J. Simpson failed to meet the burden of proving the defense of alibi. The defendant does not

16
always have to prove a defense in a civil case. If the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof, the
defendant is victorious without having to present any evidence at all.
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime with which the defendant
has been charged "beyond a reasonable doubt". Ideally, this means that if the prosecution fails to
prove any element of the crime so that no reasonable doubt exists, the defendant should be found
not guilty. In tort cases, in civil court, however, the plaintiff (the party bringing the action), must
(except in special circumstances) prove his/her case by a "preponderance of the evidence." A
preponderance of the evidence is essentially "more likely than not." It is a much lower burden than
the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applicable in criminal cases. Therefore, in O.J.
Simpson's criminal case, the jury found that the prosecution failed to prove every element of the
crimes with which he was charged to such an extent that there was no reasonable doubt he
committed at least one of the elements of the crimes with which he was charged. However, in the
subsequent wrongful death case brought by O.J. Simpson's deceased wife's family and her deceased
friend's family against him, the jury found it was more likely than not that he was legally
responsible for their deaths and the Court ordered him to pay damages to their families as the jury
had found.

12. CONCLUSION

The burden of proof is a central feature of adjudication. Nevertheless, the normative question of
how high it should be set has received remarkably little attention, particularly in the civil context.
This project addressed the question of how strong evidence should be in order to assess liability in
civil and the criminal cases. According to the researcher, the burden of proof is a very essential
feature. Demanding stronger evidence as a prerequisite to imposing sanctions will dilute deterrence,
to some extent undermining the core mission of the legal system: controlling harmful conduct. This
trade off of deterrence and chilling determines how the optimal evidence threshold should be set.

17
 REFERENCES

1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

2. http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

3. https://yoursyracuselawyer.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/what-burden-proof-civil-criminal/

4. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html

5. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html

6. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html

7. http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/PersonalInjury/burdenofproof.html

8. http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/burden-of-proof/

9. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/burden-of-proof.html

10. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_AR
GUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

18