How Preponderance of Evidence Effects Personal Injury Cases
In any civil case, a plaintiff must show enough evidence to support their claim. This amount of evidence is known as the “burden of proof,” using a standard of “preponderance of evidence.”
That is, the plaintiff’s evidence must demonstrate that their version is at least 50.1% probable — or more likely than not to be the truth. Additionally, the plaintiff must not only present this evidence, but persuade the judge and/or jury of its validity.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is vital — especially for personal injury cases. The threshold for the burden of proof in civil cases is lower than in criminal cases, meaning an injured party has a slightly easier time proving their case to seek compensation for their losses. However, a plaintiff must still gather strong and compelling evidence to support their claim and establish liability by the defendant, such as:
- Documentation
- Medical Records
- Witness Testimonies
- Expert Opinions
- Surveillance Video
- Other Information
Burden of Proof Definition in Georgia Civil Cases
Georgia Code § 24-14-1 offers this definition for the burden of proof:
The burden of proof generally lies upon the party who is asserting or affirming a fact and to the existence of whose case or defense the proof of such fact is essential. If a negation or negative affirmation is essential to a party’s case or defense, the proof of such negation or negative affirmation shall lie on the party so affirming it.
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff who suffered injuries must be prepared to show how the defendant legally caused their injuries, to the standard of preponderance of evidence.
Is Preponderance Of Evidence Used In Criminal Cases?
Yes. Compared to civil cases, criminal cases have a much higher standard for the burden of proof. The evidence must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Preponderance of Evidence Case Study: White v. Stanley (2023)
White v. Stanley was a significant case from the Georgia Court of Appeals that directly addressed the issue of jury instructions regarding the preponderance of evidence standard in civil cases. The case arose from a car accident involving Rhonda White (plaintiff) and defendants Kelli Stanley and Jason Cartee. Ms. White appealed a jury verdict that favored defendants Stanley and Cartee, arguing that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction on the preponderance of evidence standard.
The Court of Appeals found that the pattern jury instruction used was improper, as it was based on Georgia’s previous evidence code which was repealed in 2012. The court noted that the jury’s instruction incorrectly referenced the “reasonable doubt” standard typically used in criminal cases. This may have confused the jurors in the case about the burden of proof in civil cases like this one. The court then suggested that future jury instructions should utilize a simpler definition of “preponderance of the evidence,” since that evidence means that a fact is “more likely true than not.”
While the Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was erroneous, it did not grant Ms. White a new trial. This was because Ms. White testified that the defendants “did nothing wrong,” which likely influenced the jury’s decision no matter the instructions.
This case was a significant ruling because it highlighted the need for updated jury instructions that accurately reflect current Georgia law and help jurors avoid potential confusion between civil and criminal standards of proof.
Comparative Negligence in Georgia Civil Cases
Showing that the evidence establishes that the plaintiff’s version is more likely than not, is just the first hurdle. The next question is whether the injured party was comparatively negligent for causing the injuries. This term describes how a plaintiff can file a personal injury claim against a defendant for negligence for compensatory damages, even in cases where the plaintiff is partially responsible for the accident that caused the injuries.
Georgia law follows modified comparative negligence, which means that a plaintiff can still collect damages if they are found by a jury to be less than 50% responsible. In turn, any financial settlement can be reduced by that percentage. For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $20,000, but is found to be 25% responsible for the accident, the award would be reduced to $15,000, or 75% of the original amount.
One hypothetical example of modified comparative negligence is through a traffic wreck. At first, it may appear that the defendant was 100% negligent. However, if during an investigation, CCTV shows that the plaintiff was not paying attention while driving, the defense can rebut complete negligence and show the plaintiff’s partial responsibility.
A plaintiff can recover as much as 51% of damages if they were 49% or less responsible. However, if the jury finds that the plaintiff shares 50% or more of the damages, then the plaintiff cannot recover anything. If comparative negligence is involved in a case, the plaintiff will have a much higher burden of proof to show the defendant’s negligence.
Further Reading: Understanding Georgia’s Modified Comparative Fault Rules in Civil Litigation
How An Experienced Atlanta Personal Injury Attorney Can Help
Because everything in the burden of proof hinges on the evidence, it’s important to have all the right evidence to prove a claim. An Atlanta personal injury attorney can assist with gathering the evidence needed to prove the claim, prepare a strong case, handle negotiations with insurance companies, and bring the case to court if negotiations are unsuccessful.
The preponderance of evidence standard requires a plaintiff to build a strong case that shows the jury the negligent party and why they are negligent. Attorneys understand how to meet the “preponderance of evidence” standard required in civil cases. They can gather and present compelling evidence to show that your version of events is more likely than not to be true.
At Apolinsky & Associates LLC, our experienced team of attorneys can effectively establish the four elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. We know how to gather and present evidence for each element to present the best case for your claim. Contact our team today to learn how we can help build your case.
