Published on:

burden of proof, proving a civil claim for personal injury in CaliforniaAmericans seem very divided, to say the least, about the recent not guilty jury verdict for George Zimmerman related to the death of Trayvon Martin.  Indeed, this has been one of the most emotionally charged cases in recent years.  One thought I had as an attorney that has handled both civil and criminal cases is that some people may be thinking about the differences between the civil, wrongful death claims brought by Martin’s family and the criminal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman.  In Early April of this year, it was reported by the local newspapers in Florida that the parents of Trayvon Martin reached a settlement in their civil lawsuit against the homeowner’s association where Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain for approximately $1,000,000.00 (although the exact amount was confidential). (See Footnote 1).  Then, as we all now, Zimmerman was found not guilty of the criminal charges (including second degree murder) just this past weekend.  So, this leads one to think about these contrasting results.

What is a “burden of proof” and how does this differ between civil and criminal cases? The “burden of proof” is the standard by which a matter must be proven by the evidence at trial.  In the case of a criminal prosecution, it is the state bringing the charges who has this burden.  In the case of a civil action, it is the “plaintiff” (party seeking money or other damages) that bears this responsibility.  Based upon a long series of cases and judicial history, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  “Reasonable doubt” has been further defined as “doubt that would give rise to grave uncertainty”. (See Footnote 2).

By contrast, the “burden of proof” in a civil claim for money or other damages is lower.  It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as “by a preponderance of the evidence” for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim).  The “preponderance” standard is further defined as simply having to show, by the evidence, that facts are “more likely true than not true.” (See Footnote 3).

Published on:

fireworks, fireworks accident attorney, fireworks injury lawyer, California personal injury lawWhen you think about the “Fourth of July”, a few things come to mind like picnics, grilling and watching the fireworks with the kids.  Unfortunately, this year’s fireworks display in Simi Valley, CA turned awry as multiple fireworks canisters went off too close to the ground causing explosions and debris to be shot at nearby spectators.  The present count of the persons who were injured stands at thirty nine.  (See  ABC News Footage ).  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.   In that there was a similar mishap at last year’s pyrotechnics display near San Diego, CA, I wanted to explore the legal issues associated with these types of incidents.

The legal issues presented by these and other similar incidents involving fireworks malfunction are what constitutes negligence and what legal standard applies.  A related issue is whether the standard for negligence differs between the various “players” in these types of displays including the manufacturer of the fireworks, the pyrotechnic professionals hired to launch the fireworks and the entity who sponsors or sets up the event.

California, like many other states, defines “negligence” as an injury or damage caused by a lack of “ordinary care.”  However, like many jurisdictions, California holds persons engaging in “dangerous activities” to a higher standard of having to use “extreme caution.”   For example, in the case of Warner v. Santa Catalina Island Company, 44 Cal.2d 310, 317, the owner of a shooting gallery was held to this higher standard when bullets malfunctioned and injured a patron.  The court reasoned that operation of a business involving explosive materials like bullets required a higher duty to inspect and test the ammunition for close range shooting prior to distributing it for use.  Therefore, it would appear that the persons responsible for setting up the launch and ignition of fireworks may also be held to this standard of “extreme care.”  As stated by the California Supreme Court, “the care required must be in proportion to the danger to be avoided and the consequences that might reasonably be anticipated”.

Contact Information