How Does A Preponderance of Evidence Help To Establish A Burden of Proof?

In order to establish the required burden of proof, the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer must show that a preponderance of the evidence supports the client’s claim.

What is a burden of proof?

For Personal Injury Lawyer in Sydney, the burden of proof represents the extent to which the presented evidence manages to exceed a legally designated threshold. The chances that a piece of evidence could contribute to the burden of proof would depend on the jury’s readiness to view it as something that is believable.

A jury would view the evidentiary material as believable, if it seemed more likely or not to be true. On the other hand, if the jurists felt that the chances were greater than 50% that the presented material contained an inaccuracy, then the plaintiff’s lawyer would struggle to show that his/her client ought to win the personal injury case.

So, what are the chances that an inaccuracy could mean an automatic loss for the plaintiff?

The answer to that question depends on the defendant’s intentions. If a defendant had intended to counter the plaintiff’s claim, then the judge would want to jury to see additional facts. In the absence of such facts, the court would not go along with the defendant’s attempt at countering the plaintiff’s claim.

Why might a defendant feel compelled to counter that claim?

Defendants that have managed to counter an opponent’s charges have reason to feel that their reputations have been restored.

Furthermore, a jury’s opinion could be swayed, if the accused party has chosen to file a countersuit. That would suggest that the plaintiff has failed to reveal the whole story.

A judge would be familiar with jurists’ habit of questioning an argument, when the other side has file a countersuit. For that reason, the legal system insists that defendants have to present additional facts, if hoping to win a filed countersuit.

What could a personal injury lawyer do, upon learning about a countersuit?

He or she would need to question the client, and try to understand the basis for that suit. It could be that the plaintiff’s answers revealed a real weakness in the other side’s argument.

On the other hand, it could be that the same answers indicated a definite strength in the other side’s argument. In the latter case, the lawyer would need to develop a logical argument to use against the countered charges.

A lawyer’s education and experience should help with development of such an argument. That is why smart claimants/plaintiffs should learn as much as possible about the education and experience of any attorney with whom the same plaintiff has chosen to schedule consultation.

The chances of a countersuit are seldom mentioned during consultation. Still, an injury attorney’s experience and education should be discussed.

More to explorer