Negligence - Burden and Standard of Proof
Burden of Proof
claimant needs to prove his/her claim
D does not need to prove that D was not negligent
the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party
Standard of Proof
the level to which the case has to be proved
civil cases = on the balance of probabilities
this means that it is more likely than not that D was negligent based on the evidence that C puts forward
lower than criminal standards as the consequences are less serious
Exceptions
there are two exceptions to the general rule that C must prove his/her case
exceptions lead to a shift in the burden of proof, the burden passes from C to D
C must prove D negligent -> D must prove D was not negligent
this does not automatically mean that C wins the case
1) where D has already been convicted of a crime based on the same event
e.g. D convicted of dangerous driving
where D has already been convicted, D will have to prove they weren't negligent rather than C proving they were
they have already been convicted of a higher standard (beyond all reasonable doubt)
2) res ipsa loquitur
"the thing speaks for itself"
it appears obvious that D had been negligent, even if it may be difficult to explain exactly what happened
negligence is inferred from the fact that the accident happened, a matter of common sense
3 conditions must be proved to apply:
1) D was completely in control of the situation that caused the incident
2) the accident would not have happened unless someone was negligent
3) there is no other explanation for the injury
🚩 Scott v London and St. Katherine's Docks