182k views
0 votes
Amy is suing Chad in a tort action for property damages and personal injuries she sustained when Chad negligently ran a red light and crashed into her in a busy intersection. Amy must convince the jury that the light was red and that her injuries were caused by the crash. How convinced must the jurors be that Chad is at fault in order to find Chad liable?

2 Answers

1 vote

Final answer:

To find Chad liable in the civil action, the jurors must believe that it is more likely than not that the accident and Amy's injuries were caused by Chad's negligence, which means the evidence favors Amy's claims based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Step-by-step explanation:

In a civil tort action, such as the one being described where Amy is suing Chad for property damages and personal injuries, the burden of proof is based on a preponderance of the evidence. This standard is lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. To find Chad liable, the jurors must be convinced that it is more likely than not that Chad was at fault, meaning the evidence weighs more in Amy's favor than in Chad's.

When considering whether the jurors must be convinced of Chad's liability for the crash, it is essential to understand that civil jurors do not need to reach the level of certainty required in criminal cases. They need only to believe that the evidence supporting Amy's claim is stronger and more convincing than any defense presented by Chad. In other words, the jurors must find that the balance of probabilities favors Amy's account and evidence regarding the incident.

User Loscuropresagio
by
4.3k points
3 votes

Answer:

They must be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

In a civil suit, preponderance of the evidence would require a piece of evidence which outweighs other pieces of evidence which might be greater in number or amount but will not be as accurate. An admissible CCTV recording showing Chad running a red light would be enough to convince the jury in this case.

By contrast, 'beyond reasonable doubt' requires a more strict examination of all evidence presented in order to convict in a criminal trial.

User Binzi Cao
by
4.9k points