Preponderance of the Evidence
Whereas in criminal court, a defendant's guilt must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," liability on the part of a defendant in a civil action can be determined on a preponderance of the evidence. This means that a judge or jury can decide the case one way or another on the relative credibility of evidence available, not the amount of evidence.
A good example is a case in which seven amateur auto hobbyists are brought in to testify regarding a mechanical defect that led to an injury. The opposing side brings in a professional automotive engineer from a major auto manufacturing company. Because of his credentials and knowledge, any testimony given by the engineer will likely have much greater credibility than that of the seven amateurs, furnishing a greater preponderance of evidence.
Call us at (888) 360-4215 to speak with a mesothelioma paralegal
Likewise, a signed deposition from a prominent
oncologist will carry greater weight than the verbal testimony of a general practitioner.
In simplest terms, preponderance of evidence means that something is more likely to be one way than another. (It is interesting to note that in the U.K., preponderance of evidence is known as balance of probabilities.)
Between "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the highest standard) and "preponderance of evidence" (the lowest standard) is what is known as clear and convincing evidence. It is a higher level of proof requiring that the judge and/or jury be persuaded as much by the probability that the evidence is true as by the source and amount.
Regardless of which standard of proof is used, it is virtually impossible to quantify by any objective or scientific standard, although an attempt was made in 1970. By comparing the decisions made by a group of students regarding the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, one group of researchers concluded that the standard of reasonable doubt lay between 70 and 74%.