Burden Of Proof In Premises Liability Case

WHAT IS THE PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN OF PROOF IN PREMISES LIABILITY CASE?

In a civil trial, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in premises liability case. This means that the plaintiff must prove the facts in the case by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the greater weight of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the fact is true). The defendant does not have to prove that he or she is not liable. This rather the burden is on the plaintiff.  The degree of proof required in a civil case is far less strict than in a criminal case, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt” (i.e. the judge or jury must be absolutely convince of the Defendant’s criminal liability).

In a premises liability case, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the Plaintiff must present evidence that is more convincing and believable than that presented by the Defendant. The issue is not determined by the quantity of evidence, but by its credibility and persuasiveness. If the Plaintiff’s version of events appears more likely true than not true, then the burden of proof has been satisfied.

The burden of proof defines what the Plaintiff must establish to recover compensation in a premises liability claim. The Plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that each essential fact is more likely true than not true — that is, that the Plaintiff’s version of events is slightly more believable than the Defendant’s. This standard is often described as proving a case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that even a small tipping of the scales — 50.1% versus 49.9% — in favor of the Plaintiff is sufficient to meet the civil standard of proof.

To prevail in a premises liability case, the Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following elements:

1. Knowledge of the Condition: That the party responsible for the premises knew or should have known of the dangerous condition;

2. Failure to Remedy or Warn: That the responsible party failed to correct the condition or failed to provide adequate warning of the danger; and

3. Causation: That the dangerous condition directly caused the Plaintiff’s injury.

In addition, the Plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the damages claimed were more likely than not incurred as a result of the incident. “Preponderance of the evidence” means that the Plaintiff’s version of events must be more believable and probable than the Defendant’s — even if only by a small margin, such as 50.1% versus 49.9%.

Los Angeles Injury Lawyer

If you have been injured in an accident or someone you know has been injured, contact The Sterling Firm for a free consultation.