LogFAQs > #914173340

Dynalo posted...

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them. You don't even need a lawyer for this one. Easy-peasy.

Depends on the issue. In cases like this, where the defendant will obviously just say "I didn't know", the level of proof required is convincing the judge that a reasonable person would have known about it. They don't need an admission from you or hard concrete proof, just enough to pass "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're thinking of this like a criminal trial - it's not. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not used in civil law, as it is considered the highest possible threshold of responsibility and is reserved for criminal trials. In civil law, the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence" (sometimes also referred to as "balance of probabilities"). It's a much lower threshold than "beyond reasonable doubt" - you just have to convince the judge or jury that it is more likely than not your version of the story is true. The way it's usually illustrated is if A sues B and the evidence suggests that A is 51% likely to be correct and B is 49% likely to be correct, A would win the suit. By contrast, in a criminal trial if A was the prosecutor and B was the defendant, A could be 90% likely of being correct and B 10% and B would still win the case.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!