Final answer:
It is False that a defendant must be shown to have committed the offense in a civil case. In civil proceedings, the requirement is to prove liability based on a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Step-by-step explanation:
To be found responsible in a civil (tort) case, the defendant must be shown to have committed the offense is False. In a civil case, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that the evidence must weigh more in favor of the plaintiff's version of the facts than the defendant's. Unlike in a criminal case where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," a civil case does not require such a high threshold. It must only be demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable for damages.
The defendant in a civil case stands to lose property or money rather than liberty. Due to these different stakes, the constitutional safeguards for civil cases are based on ensuring fairness and justice without requiring the stringent standard needed in criminal cases. A person may be tried in both criminal and civil court for related acts because these are two separate branches of law. For instance, O.J. Simpson was tried criminally and civilly with different outcomes in each trial.