Chapter Ⅲ NEGLIGENCE (Ⅱ)
Proof of Negligence
Burden of Proof. Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit – a phrase in Latin,possibly translated in English as: “Necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges” – is perhaps the oldest and most widely adopted legal principle in all modern civilizations,meaning that anyone who claims has a duty to come forward with evidence to support his claims,or his claims would be considered as unfounded,unsupported,and will be rejected as such.
In judicial practice,the burden of proof is discharged when a claimant meets certain standards which may vary depending on the type of cases.Briefly,in criminal law,the accuser (prosecution) must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused defendant has committed a crime,because at stake are his life,limbs,and liberty;in most civil cases,however,the standard is “by preponderance” or “more likely than not,” which is a much lower standard,because the result is merely monetary remedies;another standard,also in civil cases,is “clear and convincing evidence,” which is somewhere between the firs t two,used mainly when a significant property right is involved,such as in invalidating a patent or denying a person’s property right.A somewhat impossible standard,“proof beyond the shadow of doubt,” is sometimes used in scientific proof of natural occurrence,but never in judicial practice.
Proving something is always a difficult part of a lawsuit.Although it is perhaps a little bit exaggerating,some legal professionals take it this way: “A legal battle is all about evidence.” That,at least,is true in the following case.